Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Nwkrtc Central Office vs Appasahab S/O Ramlinga Jirali (Since ... on 13 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100321 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)
C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100014 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100524 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100514 OF 2024 (L-TER),
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100374 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) ,
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100224 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
IN WA NO.100321 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
TALUK. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
SHRI. MOHAMMAD JAFAR
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD S/O. MOHAMAMAD HANIF TARAGAR,
BENCH
Date: 2024.11.20 AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
16:19:12 +0530
R/O. BADD, POST. SALIKINKOPPA,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND SRI. VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATEs)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 106905/2016 AND DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
IN WA NO.100194 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
BELGAUM DIVISION REP BY
ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.
2. THE CHIEF MECHANICAL ENGINEER
NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580030.
(BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
TALUK. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD)
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. SHIVANAND S/O. FAKIRAPPA KONISAGAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
R/O. TUNGAGABHADRA COLONY,
3RD CROSS, SAPTAPUR,
DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 101439/2018 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.100014 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
CHIKKODI DIVISION,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI,
BELGAVI
NOW, R/BY CLO, CENTRAL OFFICE,
NWKRTC, HUBLI,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
DIST. DHARWAD-580020.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
APPASAHAB S/O. RAMLINGA JIRALI
(SINCE DEAD. R/BY HIS LRs).
1. SMT. SHAKNTALA W/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
R/O AT. POST. NAGANOOR,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM-590001.
2. SMT. TANVI D/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI
MARRIED TO SAGAR TAMMDADDI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
R/O. AT. POST. NAGANOOR,
TQ. GOKAK AND DIST. BELGAUM-590001.
3. KUMARI. RAMMAY D/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. NILL,
R/O. AT. POST. NAGANOOR,
TQ. GOKAK AND DIST. BELGAUM-590001.
(PETITIONER DIED ON 17-01-2023 HENCE
WA IS FILED AGAINST HIS LEGAL HEIRS)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.79363/2013 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.100524/2024:
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHEHNAZ W/O. SHIRAZ GUNAKI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. SECTOR NO.7, H.NO.1414,
ANJANEYA NAGAR, VENTAMURI COLONY,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
DIST. BELAGAVI-590002.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, R/BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580030.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT
PETITION NO. 103220/2021 (L-KSRTC) DATED. 8.09.2022 AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.100514 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
1. THE CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR,
J.S.W. SEVERFIELD STRUCTURE LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT OFFICE 07-08, B WING, GROUND FLOOR,
ART GUILD HOUSE, PHOENIX MARKET CITY,
LBS MARG, KURLA (W), MUMBAI-400070.
2. THE CEO / MANAGING DIRECTOR,
J.S.W SEVERFIELD STRUCTURE LIMITED,
ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
VIDYANAGAR, TORANAGALLU,
TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583123
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. BELALUDDIN KHAN
S/O. MANIRUDDIN KHAN,
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/O. DOOR NO.111, A, 30TH WARD,
3RD CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR,
CANTONMENT, DISTRICT. BALLARI-583104.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 23 JULY 2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.102486/2024 (L-TER) AND GRANT COSTS OF THE APPEAL.
IN WA 100374 OF 2024:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
GADAG DIVISION REP BY
ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
THE PETITIONER IS NOW REP BY
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHRI. YELLAPPA S/O. RAMMAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KANKIKOPPA, TAL. NARAGUNDA,
DIST. GADAG.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. NIRMALA B.G., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 105369/2022 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION
WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WA NO.100224 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
NORTH WEST ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
THE APPELLANT IS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE (NOC NOT OBTAINED))
AND:
HUSSAINSAB S/O. AMMENSAB NADAF
AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: C/O. A.Y.NADAF, RETIRED ASO,
SHIVAPUTRAPPA DUNDAPPA SATTEPPANAVAR,
BEHIND KAMAT TRANSPORTS,
AT: SIGEKERI CROSS, POST: SIGEKERI,
TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/03/2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.63683/2010
(L-KSRTC) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
In all these appeals, the parties have challenged the
awards passed by the Labour Court by filing writ petitions
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, these
intra-court appeals are filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act', for short).
2. Learned counsel for the respondents herein,
raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of
the intra-Court appeals, has contended that a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.497/2022 in the case
of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited v.
Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha1 decided on
29.06.2022 has held that the intra-Court appeal is not
maintainable. The said order has been challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) 012658/2022 Diary
No.20694/2022 and no interim order is granted. He further
AIR ONLINE 2022 KAR 4396
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
contended that, following the judgment of The Management
of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), another Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100230/2023 decided on
12.04.2023 has dismissed the appeal. That order has been
challenged before the Apex Court. SLP is also dismissed. He
contended that, yet another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.A. No.100224/2023, following the judgment of The
Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), by
order dated 15.07.2024, has dismissed the appeal as not
maintainable. He has also relied upon the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.403/2023
wherein the intra-court appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.
3. Per contra, Sri. Srinivasan Raghavan, senior
counsel and Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel, appearing
for the appellants have contended that, this Court in the case
of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra),
has not considered the larger Bench judgment of this Court
in the case of Tammanna and others v. Miss Renuka and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
Others2 wherein it is held that, intra-court appeal is
maintainable. This has not been brought to the notice of the
Co-ordinate Bench. They further contended that even the
co-ordinate bench in W.A. No.200116/2016 disposed of on
02.07.2019 has held that, intra-court appeal is maintainable.
This has not been considered by the Division Bench of this
Court in The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited
(supra). They further contended that even though the Apex
Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023 dated 15.03.2024
arising out of W.A. No.100230/2023 has not dismissed the
SLP on merits and no leave has been granted. Therefore, the
same is not binding on this Court. They further contended
that the Principal Bench of this Court in W.A. No.399/2019 by
order dated 01.08.2022 has admitted the appeal and is
pending consideration. They have also relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khoday
Distilleries Limited (now known as Khoday India Limited)
and others v. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare
ILR 2009 KAR 1207;
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
Karkhane Limited, Kollegal3. They have also referred to the
judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WA No.100006/2022 disposed of on 27.08.2024. Thus, they
contended that, intra-court appeals filed under Section 4 of
the Act is maintainable.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. All the writ petitions are filed against the awards
passed by the labour Court and against the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, these intra-Court appeals have
been filed under Section 4 of the Act. A Co-ordinate Division
Bench of this Court in the case of The Management of Bharat
Fritz Werner Limited (supra) decided on 29.06.2022 has held
that any writ petition filed challenging the award of Labour
Court must be held as one under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India and intra-court appeal is not
maintainable. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgment is extracted below:
(2019) 4 SCC 376
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
" 6. In order to consider the said issue, it is necessary
to consider Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).
4. Appeals from decisions of a single Judge of
the High Court - An appeal from a judgment, decree,
order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the
exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court
under this Act or under any law for the time being in
force, shall lie to an be heard by a Bench consisting
of two other Judges of the High Court."
Section 4 of the Act provides for appeals from a
judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a Single
Judge in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court.
The definition of 'original jurisdiction' in the Act is not
defined. In the absence of definition, we place reliance upon
the Black's Law dictionary with a view to interpret the phrase
'original jurisdiction' which is found in Section 4 of the Act.
As per Black's Law Dictionary 'original jurisdiction' is :-
'Jurisdiction in the first instance'
7. Admittedly, the writ petition is filed by the
appellant challenging the award/order passed by the Labour
Court, Bengaluru. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court culled out the principles governing the
difference between the 'writ of certiorari under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India' and the 'supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India'. It is no longer
res integra that it is open to the Court while dealing with the
petition filed under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution
or Intra Court Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court's Act 1961 arising from the judgment in which the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
petition could determine whether the facts justify the party in
filing the petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the
Constitution and further that nomenclature is of no
consequence and it is the nature of relief sought and
controversy involved which determines as to which Article,
whether 226 or 227 of Constitution of India is applicable.
8. Whether a Labour Court is only a court
subordinate to High Court or it is treated as a Civil Court is a
germane issue to be dealt in this case so as to find out
whether the petition filed before the learned Single Judge can
be treated to be one under Article 226 or Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
8.1. Article *217 of the Constitution of India deals with
appointment and condition of office of the Judges of a High
Court. The word expression 'judicial office' used in Article
217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India must be interpreted in
consonance with the scheme of Chapter V & VI of Part VI of
the Constitution. It means the person who exercise only
judicial functions, determines, causes inter parties and
renders decisions in a judicial capacity. He must belong to
the judicial service which as a class is free from executive
control and is disciplined to uphold the dignity, integrity and
independence of the judiciary. Going by these tests laid
down so as to what constitutes judicial service under Article
236 of the Constitution. The Labour Court judge can be held
to belong to judicial service. The Labour Court have also
been subject to the High Court's power of superintendence
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
8.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioners' Assn.4 has held in
paragraph 20 as follows :
"20. The constitutional scheme under Chapter V
of Part VI dealing with the High Courts and Chapter
VI of Part VI dealing with the subordinate courts
shows a clear anxiety on the part of the framers of
the Constitution to preserve and promote
independence of the judiciary from the executive.
Thus Article 233 which deals with appointment of
District Judges requires that such appointments shall
be made by the Governor of the State in consultation
with the High Court. Article 233(2) has been
interpreted as prescribing that "a person in the
service of the Union or the State" can refer only to a
person in the judicial service of the Union or the
State. Article 234 which deals with recruitment of
persons other than District Judges to the judicial
service requires that their appointments can be made
only in accordance with the Rules framed by the
Governor of the State after consultation with the
State Public Service Commission and with the High
Court. Article 235 provides that the control over
district courts and courts subordinate thereto shall be
vested in the High Court; and Article 236 defines the
expression "District Judge" extensively as covering
judges of a City Civil Court etc. as earlier set out, and
(1998) 2 SCC 688
*corrected vide court order dated 01.07.2022
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
the expression "judicial service" as meaning a service
consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the
post of the District Judge and other civil judicial posts
inferior to the post of District Judge. Therefore,
bearing in mind the principle of separation of powers
and independence of the judiciary, judicial service
contemplates a HCJ & MSM,J of 2021 service
exclusively of judicial posts in which there will be a
hierarchy headed by a District Judge. The High Court
has rightly come to the conclusion that the persons
presiding over Industrial and Labour Courts would
constitute a judicial service so defined. Therefore, the
recruitment of Labour Court judges is required to be
made in accordance with Article 234 of the
Constitution."
(emphasis supplied)
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhey Shyam vs.
Chabbi Nath and Others5 observed that a writ petition can lie
only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, orders
from the Tribunals can be regarded for all purposes to be
under Article 227 of the Constitution. Whether the learned
Single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226
or under Article 227 or both would depend upon the various
aspects. There can be orders passed by the learned Single
Judge which can be construed as an order under both Articles
in a composite manner, or can co-exist and coincide. It was
reiterated that it would depend upon the nature and
character of the order and it will be the obligation of the
(2015) 5 SCC 423
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
Division Bench hearing the intra court appeal to discern and
decide whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution or both. The Bench would also require to
scrutinise whether the facts of the case justifies the assertion
made in the petition to invoke the jurisdiction under both the
Articles and the relief prayed on that foundation.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Caparo
Engineering India Ltd. vs. Ummed Singh Lodhi And Anr.6 held
in paragraph 7.9 as follows :
"7.9 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of
the appellant that the learned Single Judge of the High
Court wrongly treated the petition(s) under Article 227
and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have
treated the petition(s) under Article 226, therefore,
the writ appeal before the learned Single Judge would
have been maintainable, is concerned, at the outset, it
is required to be noted that before the learned Single
Judge in the cause title specifically Article 227 has
been mentioned. Even in prayer clause, no writ of
certiorari is sought. The prayer is simply to quash and
set aside the judgment and award passed by the
learned Labour Court and, therefore, in the fact
situation, the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the
writ appeal as not maintainable. Be that it may, even
for the sake of submission, assuming that we accept
the submission that the petition before the learned
Single Judge ought to have been treated as under
Civil Appeal Nos.5829-5830 of 2021 disposed of on 26.10.2021
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
Article 226 and writ appeal would have been
maintainable, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and instead of remanding the matter to the
Division Bench to decide the same afresh, we,
ourselves, have decided the entire controversy/issues
on merits considering the fact that the order of
transfer is of 2015 and that most of
the employees have by now retired or they are about
to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and
that it is stated that they are not paid the salaries
since 2015. Therefore, we, ourselves, have decided
the entire issues on merits." (emphasis supplied)
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kiran Devi vs. Bihar
State Sunni Wakf Board and Others7 held that "therefore the
petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the
High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under
Article 227 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High
Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of
determination of any dispute by the Tribunals is reserved
with the High Court. The nomenclature of the proceedings as
a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is
wholly inconsequential and immaterial.
12. In the instant case, the Labour Court, Bengaluru
passed an award in favour of the respondent which was
assailed before the learned Single Judge invoking jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ
petition filed by the petitioner must be held as one under
(2021) SCC online SC 280 - AIR 2021 SC 1775
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
Article 227 of the Constitution of India being a challenge to
the judicial order of the Labour Court.
13. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and also facts of the present case, without going into
the merits of the appeal, we are thus satisfied that the writ
petition being preferred under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the
Labour Court Bengaluru, the present writ appeal against the
order of the learned Single Judge which is an intra court
appeal is not maintainable."
This order has been challenged before the Apex Court in
SLP No.012658/2022. There is no stay of the order passed
by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of The Management of
Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra).
8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.403/2023 disposed of on 09.10.2023 and
W.A.No.1614/2023 disposed of on 19.03.2024 in respect of
the matter arising out of award passed by industrial Tribunal,
following the Full Bench judgment in case of Thamanna's
case (supra) held that the intra court appeal is not
maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
9. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Sadarangani
and another v. Union of India and others8 has held as
follows:
"29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case, the
pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not
mean that all other proceedings involving the same
issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered
in the reference. The reference made in Gain Singh case
need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the
decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in
any way, they continue to hold the field."
Further, it is to be noted that, the Apex Court has not
stayed the order passed by this Court in the case of The
Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra). The
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others9 has
held that, an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a
Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question
later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was
not considered or not raised before the Court or more
(2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 321
(2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the
matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the
decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored.
The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will
have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate
jurisdiction. The easy course of saying that earlier decision
was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter
will have to be resolved only in two ways- either to follow the
earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to
examine the issue.
10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.
No.100230/2023 placing reliance on The Management of
Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra) has dismissed the appeal
as not maintainable. The said judgment was taken to
Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.32290/2023. The
Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 15.03.2024 passed the
following order:
" We see no infirmity with the view taken by the
Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
orders."
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB
WA No. 100321/2024 C/W
WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024,
WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024,
WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018
11. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.
No.100224/2023 and also W.A.No.929/2013 and connected
matters following the judgment of The Management of
Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), has dismissed the
appeal as not maintainable.
12. In view of the above, following the Co-ordinate
Bench judgments, all these intra-Court appeals filed under
Section 4 of the Act are dismissed as not maintainable. As a
consequence, pending applications stand closed.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
kmv
