Karnataka High Court
Rudrappa Fakirappa Talwar vs The Management Of Grama Panchayat on 27 March, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
WA No. 100183 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100183 OF 2023 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
RUDRAPPA FAKIRAPPA TALWAR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYED,
R/O. KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALBHAVI,
R/BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591101.
2. THE CHAIRMAN,
GRAM PANCHAYAT,
KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
MOHANKUMAR DIST. BELAGAVI-591101.
B SHELAR
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI-590001.
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER
DATED 06/01/2023 MADE IN W.P.NO.108729/2017 (L-RES) PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT BY
ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION NO.108729/2017 (L-RES) AS
PRAYED FOR THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
WA No. 100183 of 2023
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 6.1.2023
passed in WP No.108729/2017 by the learned Single Judge, is
in this intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, whereunder the petitioner's challenge to
an order dated 23.11.2016 in Reference No.50/2015 by the
Labour Court, Belagavi, is rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund
for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. V Shivaraj Hiremath
for the respondents No.1 and 3. Perused the entire writ
appeal papers.
3. The petitioner was appointed as a Computer
Operator in respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat in the year 2007
and in the year 2011, he was abruptly terminated from the
service without passing any resolution and without issuing any
order of termination. Thereafter, immediately, he raised a
dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court under
Reference No.50/2015. It was the contention of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
respondents that the petitioner was not an employee of
respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat and there is no relationship
of employee and employer between the petitioner and
respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. The Labour Court under
award dated 23.11.2016 rejected the reference with liberty to
the petitioner to file an appeal before Zilla Panchayat.
Questioning the same, the petitioner was before this Court in
the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge on
considering the rival contentions of the parties, under
impugned order dated 6.1.2023 rejected the writ petition.
Against which, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund for the
appellant/petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked
from 2007 to 2011 without break and therefore, the
respondent/Panchayat could not have terminated the petitioner
from service without providing an opportunity and without
conducting any enquiry. He submits that the termination of the
petitioner from service as a Computer Operator is wholly illegal
and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court failed to
appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and without
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
assigning any reason, rejected the reference of the petitioner.
He further submits that the Labour Court has not assigned any
proper reasons for rejecting the reference. As the petitioner
had worked from 2007 to 2011 continuously, he would be
entitled for the relief as prayed. Thus, he prays for allowing the
appeal.
5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.V Shivaraj Hiremath
for respondents No.1 and 3 submits that the petitioner has not
placed on record any document to establish that there was
employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and
respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the
petitioner was appointed through outsource agency as a
Computer Operator and he was not an employee of respondent
No.2/Gram Panchayat. Further, learned counsel submits that
the Gram Panchayat has not terminated the service of the
petitioner and if at all there is termination, it should be by
outsource agency, who appointed the petitioner. Thus, learned
counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference?
7. Answer to the above point would be in the
"negative" for the following reasons:
The petitioner/appellant claims that he was appointed as
a Computer Operator on 15.10.2007 in the respondent/Gram
Panchayat. However, the petitioner has not placed on record
any material or document to establish his appointment by
respondent/Gram Panchayat. When there is no material on
record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that he is
an employee of respondent/Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had
to place on record appointment letter or any document for
having received the salary from respondent/Gram Panchayat.
In the absence of any iota of material or document on record,
this Court or Labour Court cannot come to a conclusion that the
petitioner was an employee of respondent/Gram Panchayat.
When the petitioner has failed to establish his relationship of
employee and employer between the petitioner and
respondent/Gram Panchayat, question of respondents following
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB
the procedure prescribed for termination or providing an
opportunity to the petitioner would not arise.
8. In the above circumstances, we are of the
considered view that the petitioner has not made out any
ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge. We see no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly,
writ appeal stands rejected.
Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not
surviving for consideration.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
