Karnataka High Court
Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd vs Paramanna S/O Kotrappa Kumbar on 4 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
WA No. 200163 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200163 OF 2015 (L-TER)
IN W.P.NO.4326/2007
BETWEEN:
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
III FLOOR, PWD ANNEXE,
K.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-1,
BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRAKASH S. MAISALAGI, ADVOCATE
Digitally signed by FOR SRI. SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
PARAMANNA
S/O KOTRAPPA KUMBAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC : NIL,
R/O : KUMBARPETH,
TQ. : SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-585224.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SANTHOSH A, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
WA No. 200163 of 2015
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.4326/2007 (L-TER) DATED 25.03.2015 AND SET ASIDE
THE AWARD DATED 07.10.2006 OF LABOUR COURT,
GULBARGA, IN REF. NO. ID 552/1998 AND DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN INTO SERVICE AS A DAILY RATED
EMPLOYEE WITHIN 3 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AWARD
AND TO CONSIDER THE PERIOD FROM 26.10.1982 TO DATE OF
ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT TO B TREATED AS CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES EXCEPT MONETARY
BENEFITS AND REINSTATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT WITH
OTHER BENEFITS MENTIONED THEREON.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is filed challenging the order
dated 25.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.4326/2007.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as
under:
The respondent No.1 was a daily wage workman who
had been appointed against vacant post and had worked
under the respondent Nos.1 to 3 since November 1979
and was terminated in the year 1982. The respondent
aggrieved by the order of termination preferred a petition
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
in W.P.No.22276/1990. The said writ petition came to be
disposed of vide order dated 08.03.1990 by directing the
respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for regularization in accordance with the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court and further it is
contended that the petitioner was re-instated in the
service by orders of Executive Engineer, Division No.3
UKP, Tq: Shorapura on 28.09.1993. It is further contended
that the Superintending Engineer had recommended the
case for payment of backwages. The Secretary to
Irrigation Department, Government of Karnataka, has
disapproved the orders passed by the Chief Engineer and
Executive Engineer and directed to terminate the
respondent, inspite of the orders passed in
W.P.No.22276/1990. Hence, the respondent approached
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (for short "KAT") by
filing a petition in L 617/1994. The KAT disposed of the
petition and directed the respondent/workman to approach
the Labour Court. The respondent approached the Labour
Court. Notice was issued to the appellant. Though the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
appellant has appeared however did not choose to file
statement of objections. The Labour Court allowed the
reference petition filed under Section 10(1)(c) of I.D. Act
and directed the respondent No.4 to reinstate the
petitioner into service as daily rated employee within a
period of 3 months from the date of award coming into
force on its publication. The petitioner, aggrieved by the
award passed in reference petition No.552/1998 by the
Labour Court has preferred the petition in
W.P.No.4326/2007, wherein the learned Single considering
the material on record dismissed the writ petition. Hence,
this appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
there is relationship as employer and employee between
the appellant and respondent. The said aspect was not
considered by the Labour Court and also by the learned
Single Judge. Hence, the learned Single Judge has
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
committed an error in dismissing the petition. Hence, on
these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.
5. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is not in dispute that the respondent is an
employee of appellant since from the year 1994. The
respondent was terminated from service in the year 1982
by the appellant. The appellant, aggrieved by the order of
termination preferred writ petition in W.P.No.22276/1990
which came to be disposed of by directing the appellant to
consider the case of the respondent for regularization in
accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the respondent
was reinstated. Subsequently, again the appellant was
terminated the respondent from service without assigning
any reasons. The respondent, aggrieved by the order of
termination raised a dispute before the Government. The
Government has referred the reference to the Labour
Court under Section 10(1)(C) of I.D. Act vide order dated
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
23.09.1998. The respondent filed a claim petition before
the Labour Court, Gulbarga. Notices were issued to the
appellant. Though the appellant have appeared through
the counsel but they did not choose to file statement of
objections. The Labour Court after remand provided the
opportunities to both the parties to lead evidence. The
appellant has lead evidence of one witness as MW.1 and
got marked Exs.M1 and M2. The respondent No.1 has not
lead any further evidence. The Labour Court after
recording the evidence and considering the material on
record answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and
point No.4 as per final order.
7. The respondent No.1 proved that there exist
relationship as an employer and employee between the
appellant and respondent No.1. The Labour Court allowed
the petition filed by the respondent. The present appellant
aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court,
preferred writ petition in W.P.No.45122/2002 which had
taken over the UKP irrigation work on its coming into
existence since the appellant was not made party to the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
dispute. This Court allowed the writ petition and remitted
the matter to the Labour Court for re-adjudication. The
appellant was impleaded as respondent No.4. Respondent
No.4 filed statement of objections contending that the
records being old are not traced. It is contended that the
work for which he was engaged having come to an end
and he was terminated. Hence, he prays to dismiss the
claim petition.
8. The reference petition was allowed and order of
termination was set aside and directed the appellant
herein to reinstate the respondent as a daily rated
employee. The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed
by the Labour Court preferred the writ petition in
W.P.No.4326/2007. The learned Single Judge on re-
assessment of the material on record dismissed the
petition. We have perused the award and impugned order.
We hold that respondent No.1 was illegally terminated the
petitioner from service. There exist relationship as an
employee and employer between the petitioner and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3549-DB
respondents. The respondent No.1 without holding an
enquiry has passed an order of termination. The order of
termination is in violation of principle of natural justice.
The Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have
concurrently recorded a finding of facts. The learned
Single Judge is justified in passing the impugned order.
Hence, we do not find no error in the impugned order and
decline to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
CT;BN
