Karnataka High Court
The Mysuru - Chamarajanagar District vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 6 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
WP No. 29834 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29834 OF 2015 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MYSURU-CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES LTD.,
SIDDARTH NAGAR, T.NARASIPURA ROAD,
MYSURU-570 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI CHANNAKRISHNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
S/O CHANNAPPA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE [PH])
AND:
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
MYSURU REGION,
Digitally PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,
signed by MYSURU-570 024.
SUMA
Location:
HIGH 2. SRI RAJASHEKHARA MURTHY,
COURT
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE KARIKOSSAPPA,
NO.7/APPELLANT 12TH CROSS,
RAMANUJA ROAD,
MYSURU-570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.J. ESWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 [PH];
SRI. M. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
WP No. 29834 of 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL
NO.496/2012 BY THE K.A.T AT ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT
PETITION ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged an award dated 30.03.2012
passed in Dispute No.JRM/675/2009-10 by the respondent
No.1. The petitioner has also called in question an order dated
07.07.2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,
Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Appeal
No.496/2012, by which it dismissed the appeal as barred by
time.
2. The petitioner contends that a domestic enquiry
was held against the respondent No.2 for alleged lapses and
misconduct following which Enquiry Officer was appointed, who
after an enquiry submitted his report. After furnishing a copy
of the enquiry report and after hearing the respondent No.2,
the petitioner passed an order dated 27.04.2007 demoting the
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
respondent No.2 from the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) to
the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) and re-fixing his basic
salary which was in the pay scale of Rs.7400-200-8800-260-
10880-320-13120 at the minimum pay of Rs.7400/- and also
placed the respondent No.2 last in the seniority. The
respondent No.2 submitted a memorandum on 16.11.2007 to
the petitioner - Milk Union and requested it to modify the order
of punishment dated 27.04.2007 and agreed that he would not
challenge the modified order of punishment before any Court.
3. Following this, the petitioner reconsidered the
matter and passed a modified order on 23.11.2007 re-fixing
the pay scale of the respondent No.2 from Rs.7400-13120 to
Rs.14050-25050 and fixed his basic pay at Rs.22,650/- with
effect from 01.07.2005. The respondent No.2 after getting the
benefits and after his suspension period was treated as on
work, he raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before
the respondent No.1 and sought for a direction to the petitioner
herein to pay subsistence allowance for the period from
13.08.2004 to 12.02.2005. The respondent No.1 passed an
order dated 30.03.2012 by which it set aside the order passed
by the petitioner herein treating the period of absence of the
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
respondent No.2 herein from 13.08.2004 to 12.02.2005 as
suspension period and directed the petitioner herein to pay the
balance subsistence allowance to the petitioner herein. The
petitioner thereafter belatedly challenged the order passed by
the respondent No.1 herein dated 30.03.2012 before the
Tribunal under Section 105(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative
Societies Act, 1959. The petitioner claimed that it also filed an
application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal without
noticing the fact that the application for condonation of delay
was filed, proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that
no application was filed for condonation of delay and thereby,
dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
along with the appeal filed before the Tribunal, an application
was filed for condonation of delay and the same is evident from
the order sheet dated 21.02.2013. He contends that the
application for stay of the order passed by the respondent No.1
herein was filed only on 10.03.2015. He contends that the
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
Tribunal had misplaced the application for condonation of delay.
Consequently, he contends that the impugned order passed by
the Tribunal without noticing the application for condonation of
delay was defective. He also submits that filing of an
application for condonation of delay is a mere formality and
even if such an application is not filed, the Tribunal was bound
to look into the assertions made in the appeal memorandum
and condone the delay. He submits that the Tribunal could not
have rejected the appeal on technical ground. In support of his
contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. v. Baidyabati
Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. [AIR 2021
SC 2637].
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
remained absent and therefore, this Court did not have the
benefit of his submissions.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
8. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by the
Tribunal shows that notice of the appeal and application was
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
issued to the respondent No.2 herein. It is not known whether
the application referred to in the said order is the application
filed by the petitioner herein for condonation of delay. The
Tribunal therefore must have perused the records before
holding that the petitioner herein had not filed any application
for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Assuming that the
petitioner herein had not filed the application, the Tribunal
must have taken appropriate steps to call upon the petitioner to
file necessary application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal. The Tribunal after having heard the
appellant/petitioner herein, could not have rejected the appeal
on a technical ground. In that view of the matter, the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set
aside.
Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The
impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed in Appeal
No.496/2012 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru,
is set aside. Consequently, the said appeal before the Tribunal
stands restored and the Tribunal shall consider and dispose off
the appeal afresh in view of the finding recorded above. It is
open for the petitioner herein to file a fresh application for
NC: 2025:KHC:9668
condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. If
an application is filed, the Tribunal shall consider the same and
proceed in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2017 for
modification of the interim order dated 14.12.2015 does not
survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
SMA
