Karnataka High Court
Satyappa Bharmappa Beleri vs The Chief Secretary Of Jilla Panchayat on 27 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
WP No. 61293 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 61293 OF 2011 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SATYAPPA BHARMAPPA BELERI,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: HATTALGERI, TQ. AND DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF JILLA PANCHAYAT,
(AS PER NEW DISTRICT) GADAG.
2. THE SERICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICER,
TECHNICAL SERVICE CENTER,
GADAG JILLA PANCHAYAT,
SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GADAG,
(AS PER OLD DHARWAD DISTRICT).
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR ... RESPONDENTS
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY
ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING
THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI
IN REFERENCE NO.29/2001 DATED: 01/06/2007 AT ANNEXURE-
E.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
WP No. 61293 of 2011
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed assaling the award dated 01.06.2007 in
Reference No. 29/2001 on the file of the Principal Labour Court at
Hubbali.
2. Petitioner claims to be the employee under
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 1 is the Chief Secretary
of Zilla Panchayath and respondent No. 2 is the Officer of the
Sericulture Department.
3. Petitioner claims that he was appointed under
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as a skilled labourer in the Office of
respondent No.1 with effect from 26.06.1979 and he was removed
from service in the year 1983 without any enquiry, without any
notice and without assigning any reason. Citing this, the dispute is
raised before the Conciliation Officer. The dispute was referred
to the Labour Court, Hubballi for adjudication.
4. In terms of the order dated 14.02.2001, the second
party before the Reference Court raised two contentions:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
(a) the petition is hit by delay and laches;
(b) the Respondent is not an industry.
5. The Labour Court answered both questions against
the petitioner. The Labour Court noticed that the dispute raised
after lapse of 17 and 18 years from the date of dismissal from
service is not maintainable. In addition, the Labour Court also held
that the respondent is not an industry.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
urge that no issue is framed relating to limitation. Had it been
framed, the petitioner would have led evidence and limitation
being a mixed question of law and fact, without framing an issue
and without inviting the evidence of the party, the Labour Court
could not have held that the petition is hit by delay and laches.
7. In addition to that, learned counsel would also submit
that respondent is an industry and the Labour Court without any
justification and without valid reason has held that the respondent
No.1 - Zilla Panchayath is not an industry.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta
High Court in Sandhya Baul vs Director of Panchayat And
Another1.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would
submit that the petitioner was removed from service in 1983 and
he kept quiet for 17 years. In 2001, and later petitioner raised a
dispute and Labour Court is justified in holding that the dispute
raised by the petitioner is hit by delay and laches.
10. In addition, learned counsel for the respondents would
also place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Executive Engineer and Anr. vs D.Basavaraj2. It
is his contention that in the case of Executive Engineer versus
D. Basavaraj supra, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held
that the Zilla Panchayat is not an industry, as such, would urge
2006(1) LLJ 637
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered in terms of
the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment.
11. This Court has considered the contentions raised at
the bar and perused the records.
12. It is to be noticed that in the case of Executive
Engineer vs D. Basavaraj supra, the Court has referred to the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in The Assistant
Executive Engineer, Mangalore vs Karnataka State
Government Daily Wage Employees Federation, Mangalore3.
In the aforementioned judgment, the Court has held that the
Public Works Department cannot be treated as an industry.
Since, the respondents in the present petition do not fall under the
category of Public Works Department, this Court is of the view that
the aforementioned judgment does not apply to the facts of this
case.
13. As far as the delay and laches is concerned, though
learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that no issue is
ILR 2004 Kar 1619
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
framed, it is required to be noticed from the averment made in the
claim statement that the petitioner states that he was removed
from service on 01.04.1983 and it is his further statement that he
made a claim for reinstatement on 20.01.1985. In paragraph No.3
of the claim statement, petitioner further states that on
25.03.1990, he filed one more application and on 08.02.1994 a
third application is filed to restore his services.
14. From paragraph No.3 of the petition it is noticed that
the last of such application which according to the petitioner was
filed on 08.02.1994. Thereafter, it appears that no such application
is filed. Even otherwise, the first application itself is of 1985 and
thereafter, till 25.03.1990 no such application is filed and copies of
those applications are not produced before the Court.
15. Assuming that the applications are filed on the dates
referred to above, still it does not explain the due diligence on the
part of the petitioner. Petitioner ought to have taken action much
earlier.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
16. Merely because an issue is not raised, it does not
mean that the obligation on the part of the petitioner to explain the
delay and laches is absolved and petitioner, can straight away
proceed to urge his contention on merits of the matter.
17. In paragraph No.3 of the statement of objection, the
respondents have clearly contended that the petitioner's claim is
time barred. The Trial Court has noted that the dispute raised after
17 to 18 years is not maintainable. Thereafter, the reference is
rejected in terms of the impugned award dated 01.06.2007.
18. Even in the writ petition, petitioners have not
explained the delay in questioning the award. Though the award is
passed on 01.06.2007, writ petition is filed on 10.02.2011, almost
3½ years after the award. Even in the Writ Petition, the petitioner
has not produced any document to show that he was pursuing his
remedy by filing application before the competent authority. No
explanation is offered in the Writ Petition as to what prevented the
petitioner from raising the dispute at the earliest possible
opportunity.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:14354
HC-KAR
19. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find
any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
20. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
CT:BCK
