Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjun vs Halsidhanath Sahakari on 29 August, 2025
Author: S.R. Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R. Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
WP No. 81539 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 81539 OF 2013 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
MALLIKARJUN
S/O. DEVENDRAPPA VEERAPUR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
R/O: NEAR TELEPHONE EXCHANGE,
WARD NO.5, NAVANAGAR,
AT HUNUGUND TALUK,
HUNUGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J S SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. HALSIDHANATH SAHAKARI
SAKKARE KARKHANE LIMITED,
Digitally signed NIPPANI, NIPPANI TALUK,
by SAMREEN
AYUB DESHNUR DIST: BELGAUM,
Location: HIGH BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OC CO-OP. SOCIETIES
Date: 2025.09.02
17:43:33 +0530 COMMISSIONER FOR SUGAR CANE
DEVELOPMENT, AN DIRECTOR OF
SUGAR CANE, CHOUGALE BUILDING,
CRESCENT ROAD, BANGALORE-1.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2;
SRI. SHANTESH GUREDDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 15/02/2013, IN APPEAL NO.611/2008, PASSED
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
WP No. 81539 of 2013
HC-KAR
BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, THE
COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED
AS ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO
IMPLEMENT THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2008, PASSED BY THE
SECOND RESPONDENT-JOINT REGISTRAR AND COMMISSIONER
FOR SUGAR CANE DEVELOPMENT IN DISPUTE NO.DKS / DIS /
30 / 2005-06, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND TO RELEASE ALL THE MONETARY BENEFITS
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETIITONER, WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE
OF 18% P.A. AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR RPELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
This petition takes exception to the impugned order dated
15.02.2013 passed in Appeal No.611/2008 by the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru1, whereby the said appeal filed by
respondent No.1 - Sri Halasidhanath Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane
Limited was allowed by the KAT thereby setting aside the order
dated 29.07.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent - JRCS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government
Hereinafter referred to as "KAT" for short
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
Advocate for respondent No.2 and perused the material on
record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
the petitioner was appointed as a Deputy Chief Engineer in the
1st respondent - Sugar Factory, which subsequently, appointed
him to the post of the Assistant Engineer (Electrical Engineer)
with effect from 01.02.2002. Meanwhile, pursuant to the
Resolution dated 07.07.1970 issued by the Ministry of Labour,
Employment and Rehabilitation (Department of Labour and
Employment) and recommendation of the Wage Board, the age
of superannuation of the petitioner and similarly placed persons
was stipulated as 60 years instead of 58 years in view of the
additional period of two years being beneficial to the workman.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 got its standing orders certified by
the competent authority Annexures-F and G under which, the
age of superannuation of the petitioner was stipulated to be 60
years instead of 58 years in view of the extended period of two
years being period more beneficial to the petitioner. However
since respondent No.1 purported to relieve the petitioner from
service with effect from 13.01.2004, the petitioner approached
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
the 2nd respondent - JRCS by raising a dispute under Section 70
of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act. The said dispute
was allowed in favour of the petitioner by the JRCS by passing
an order dated 29.07.2008 as hereunder:
"BEFORE THE HON'BLE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND TO HON'BLE COMMISSIONER
FOR SUGAR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF
SUGAR BANGALORE
Dispute No. DKS/DIS/30/2005-06
Between
Shri M.D. Veerapur
Age:59 years S/o Late Devendrappa Veerapur
Residing near Telephone Exchange, Ward No.5,
Navanagar Hunagund.
Bagalkot District.
And
The Managing Director,
Shri. Halasidhanath Sahari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd,
Nipani, Belgaum, District.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this dispute under section 70
of KCS Act, Before the Hon'ble Joint Registrar of Co.
Operative Societies and To Hon'ble Commissioner for
Sugar Cane Development and Director of Sugar
Bangalore. The same has been referred to this court for
disposal according to law.
The facts of this dispute are as under:-
1) The petitioner had been appointed in the respondent
factory as a Deputy Chief Engineer by order number
HSSK/EST/DY-CHEI/96/97/934 dated 2-8-1996. Since
from the date of appointment is working in the factory
till 14-01-2004.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
2) The post of the Deputy Chief Engineer in the Co-
Operative Sugar Factory in the state of Karnataka is
outside the purview of Wage Board for Sugar
Industries constituted by Government of India time to
time. Therefore, the recommendations of the 1st and
2nd Wage Board with regard to service conditions are
not applicable to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer.
This post is optional post. The Factory can fill up the
said post if factory is expanded or other ancillary are
put up.
3) The respondent Karakhana had sent a proposal to the
Honourable Authority for withdrawal of the post of the
Deputy Chief Engineer on the ground that the
Karakhana is not interested in Expanding the factory
in future. The respondent factory directed the
petitioner to give his consent to the said proposal and
also continue as Assistant Engineer. Since the
petitioner was at the fag end of his services, gave his
consent to continue as Assistant Engineer accordingly
the post of Deputy Chief Engineer.
4) The respondent management had issued an order
appointing the petitioner in the post of Assistant
Engineer with effect from 01-02-2002. In the pay
scale of Rs. 2600-75-3350-90-4250-105-5825 and
fixed the basic pay at Rs. 5,300/- per month in the
Supervisory "A" grade.
5) In view of the abolition of the post of Deputy Chief
Engineer and posting the petitioner in the post of
Assistant Engineer and services of the petitioner had
been regulated and come within the purview of Wage
Board Recommendations.
6) When things stood at that stage the respondent had
issued a letter dated 29.12.2003 to the petitioner
stating that, he will be releaved from the services of
the Factory with effect from 14-01-2004 as he is
attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years as
per the date of birth. On receipt of this letter,
petitioner had submitted representation on 2-01-2004
to the respondent bringing to the notice of respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
that in view of Tripartite Wage Board
Recommendations and as per standing order of the
Karkhana the retirement age is 60 years and
requested to supply the copy of order in connection
with reducing the age of retirement from 60 to 58
years. But respondent no replied to the representation
and passed order releaving the petitioner from service
with effect from 31-01-2004. The petitioner had also
submitted 5 representations before this Hon'ble
Authority seeking redressal on 29-07-2004, 07-09-
2004, 18-11-2004, 15-12-2004, NS 27-12-2004. The
Hon'ble Authority, by series of letters dated 28-09-
2004, 20-12-2004, and 31-01-2005 was pleased to
direct the respondent to take action on request made
by the petitioner but the respondent had not taken
any action in this respect.
7) The defendant has submitted the writer statement as
under:-
1) Defendant prays that the suit filed by the plaintiff is
liable to be dismissed as it is not maintainable
before this Hon'ble court. On the following grounds
of law and facts and at first instance on the
following preliminary issues before the suit is heard
on merits.
i) The plaintiff had worked with the defendant in
pursuance of contract of personal service comprised
of definite terns and conditions of the said contract.
Therefore such personal service contract is not a
matter of touching the business of the society.
Hence it is out of purview of the jurisdiction of this
court.
ii) The plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case
against his retirement effected in accordance with
law. Therefore the retirement from the service. The
plaintiff since 14-1-2004 is no more an officer of
the defendant and hence does not have any
relationship with the defendant co-operative society
as such he does not have any right to raise any
dispute U/S 70 of the co-operative act.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
8) The defendant submit the facts of the case in brief
regarding the each page of the petitioner of the plaintiff
as under.
i) The defendant is the Chief Executive Officer of a
co-operative Society registered under the name
and style of share Halasiddhanath Sahakari
Sakkare Karkhane Ltd, Nipani under the Co-
Operative Act. It has its own Bye-Laws and service
rules duly certified under the employees standing
order's act 1946 and also approved by the
co.operative department. The said service rules
are applicable only to Workmen employed by the
defendant.
ii) The plaintiff was appointed as a Deputy Chief
Engineer by Defendant vide it's order dated 02-08-
1998 by stipulating definite terms and conditions
in the said order. The said order was in the nature
of personal service contract between the defendant
society and the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was not
entitled to claim any benefit beyond the scope of
the terms. pay scale of Rupees 2500-75-100-
4200 and per month and a personal pay or Rupees
/-
iii) As per the terms of the contract executed
between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff
was entitled for a pay scale of Rupees 2500-75-
100-4200 and at the outset basic pay of the
plaintiff was fixed as Rupees 4200/- per month
and a personal pay of Rupees 1,038/- per month
was also being paid to the plaintiff in addition to it
DA at the rate of 54% bonus per year, leave as
per rules, rent free.
iv) The plaintiff was not covered by the provisions of
the employee rules framed by the defendant.
Further the plaintiff's was also not covered by the
Wage Board Recommendations as well as by the
Tripartite settlement. The said settlement executed
in between the Government, Sugar Factories and
Workers Federation. The said settlement has been
drawn out before the commissioner of Labour
under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The terms
and conditions of the said settlement are not
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
applicable to the post of Deputy Chief Engineer
Under the circumstances the plaintiff does not
have any right to claim as prayed.
v) The plaintiff was holding the post of Deputy Chief
Engineer from 2-8-1996 till 31-1-2002. The
defendant had executed the personal contract with
the plaintiff by allotting post of Deputy Chief
Engineer only to meet the administrative
requirements of it expansion pragamme of the
defendant. The post was created only with the
special approval from the co operative department.
As soon as the very purpose of creation of the said
post was lost the defendant on the request letter
of the plaintiff placed him in the new post of
Assistant Engineer with effect from 1-2-2002 in
the pay scale 2600-75-3350-90-4250-105-5825
and hiss basic salary was fixed at rupees 5300/-.
9. The defendant submitted the objection to each para
of the petition of the plaintiff as under:
i) The defendant submitted that only with due
acceptance of the terms and conditions of the new
personal contract by the plaintiff. He was placed in
the new post of Assistant Engineer with effect from
1-2-2002 in new scale.
ii) The defendant denied the Tripatite Sugar Wage
Committee Recommendations covered the post of
Deputy Chief Engineer when the recommendations
were published. The said report was brought in to
force on 1-3-1999 and during this period the
plaintiff was holding the post of Deputy Chief
Engineer. As such there is no question of making
the recommendations applicable to him as they
were recommendations, but not mandatory in
nature. Thus the claim based on such settlement is
not tenable under law, with the personal service
contract with the plaintiff proposed and adopted
the new scale i.e. 2600- to 5825 and the same
was accepted by the plaintiff without making any
grievance against it. As such by no stretch of
imagination the personal contract existed between
the plaintiff and defendant cab be brought within
the purview.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
10) On these contentions the rival parties the following
issues are framed on 21-2-2006.
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to retire
at the age of 60 years with all monetary benefits?
2) Whether the defendant proves that this court has no
jurisdiction to try this case?
11) My Finding s on the issues are as under:
1) Affirmative
2) Negative
The plaintiff in this case has been examined as
P.W. 1 and document produced by him are marked as
exhibit P1 to P15.
The issue number 1:- the plaintiff this case, who
was working with the defendant factory as Assistant
Engineer, has to retired with his service on 13-01-2006
that is till attaining the age of 60 years. The defendant
denied this aspect and accordingly they have issued the
retirement order on 13-1-2004. The plaintiff has
adduced oral evidence by way of affidavit and he has
been cross examined by the defendant. The plaintiff has
produced a certified copy of the judgment delivered in
Writ Petition Number 11380/1988 by the High Court of
Karnataka Bangalore. The proposition of law and the
decision given in the said Judgment which is of our High
court is binding on the defendant. In support of the
copy of judgment produced by the plaintiff the
defendant has not produced any of the decision to
support their case.
In this judgment an issue pertaining to the age of
retirement has been thoroughly discussed with various
decisions and the Hon'ble High court has came to a
conclusion that the age of retirement should be 60
years. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to retire from his
service at the age of 60 years with all benefits. Hence,
the issue is answered accordingly.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
Issue No. 2:- Issue Number 2 pertains to
Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The defendant has
contended that this court has no jurisdiction to try this
case and had not filed any application to treat this
issued as a preliminary issue by this Hon'ble court to
hear that issue as a preliminary issue before the
commencement of recording of evidence. The defendant
has cross examined the plaintiff and thus when the
entire trial is concluded the defendant need not object
for the same. Hence this court has got jurisdiction and
accordingly the entire trial is concluded.
The defendant has not produced any other
documents in support of their contentions even they
have not produced any other circulars in support of their
case. Thus they have failed to prove their contentions
taken in the written statement. Hence, I answer issue
Number 2 as above.
Hence I pass the following order.
ORDER
The order passed by the defendant dated
31.01.2004 is set aside and the respondent is directed
to consider the petitioner to duty as Assistant Engineer
and consider his services till 13-01-2006 i.e. till
attaining the age of 60 years with all monitory benefits
arising there from.
Order passed, pronounced in the open court on
today 29th Day of July 2008.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative Societies
Chikodi Sub Division,
Chikodi."
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the
detailed reasons and findings recorded by the 2nd respondent -
JRCS, the appeal filed by the 1st respondent was erroneously
allowed by the KAT without considering the effect and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
consequences flowing from the recommendation from the Wage
Board and the certified standing order, both of which stipulated
that in the event period of superannuation is extended to the
age of 60 years instead of 58 years, the same would be
beneficial and in the interest of the petitioner. Under these
circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the
present petition.
5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the KAT
will indicate that, Gazette notification dated 07.07.1970 issued
by the Central Government, the recommendations of the Wage
Board as well as the certified standing orders have not been
considered by the KAT in their proper perspective. In this
context, it is relevant to state that the KAT has proceeded on the
erroneous premise that as per the prevailing Act and Rules, the
petitioner had attained the age of superannuation when he
turned 58 years and the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare
Karkhane Limited, Pandavapura Vs. The Presiding Officer,
Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru and others2 has
W.P.No.11380/1988 dated 02.03.1994
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
not been considered. Under these circumstances, having regard
to the erroneous findings recorded by the KAT in the impugned
order by not taking into account the Wage Board
recommendations then the certified standing orders and the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.11380/1988, relied upon by the 2nd respondent - JRCS, I
deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order
and remit the matter back to the KAT for reconsideration afresh
in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame.
6. In the result, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 15.02.2013 passed in
Appeal No.611/2008 by the KAT is hereby set
aside and the matter is remitted back to the KAT
for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with
law.
(iii) The parties are directed to appear before the
KAT on 22.09.2025 without awaiting further the
notice from the KAT.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11017
HC-KAR
(iv) All rival contentions on all aspect of the matter of
the parties are kept open.
(v) The KAT is directed to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible within three months
from the date of appearance of the parties.
Sd/-
(S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
EM
Ct:vh
