IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/...1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH Dated this the 26 th day of February,

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

Dated this the 26th day of February, 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY&

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A S PACHHAPURE

WRIT APPEAL No. 50509/2012C/W 50485/2012,

50378/2012, 50487/2012, 50544/2012,50360/2012, 50437/2012, 50369/2012,50427/2012, 50375/2012, 50282/2012,50275/2012, 50283/2012, 50306/2012,50515/2012, 50371/2012 & 50441-442/2012,50359/2012, 50331/2012, 50358/2012,50376/2012, 50273/2012, 50361/2012,50370/2012, 50416/2012, 50514/2012,50284/2012, 50280/2012, 50484/2012,50409/2012, 50417/2012, 50374/2012,50281/2012, 50420/2012, 50373/2012,

50410/2012, 50439/2012, 50377/2012(L-TER)

W A NO. 50509/2012

BETWEEN:

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERP.W.D. BIJAPUR DIVISION,BIJAPUR.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.,PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,M.S. BUILDING,BANGALORE – 560 001.

2

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEERDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE – 1.

…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHANDRASHEKHARS/O VISHNUPANTH UPADHYAE,AGE: MINOR,OCC: NIL,R/O C/O V.G. UPADHYAE,NO.40, AJAREKAR CHAWAL,BIJAPUR AT BIJAPUR,CO. SRI. V.G. KULKARNI,ADVOCATE, BAGALKOT ROAD,BIJAPUR.

…RESPONDENT( R1 IS SERVED)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.80655/2010 (L-TER) AND SET ASIDETHE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR ON5.8.2008 IN REFERENCE NO.51/2001. OUT OF TIME.

W A NO. 50485/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISIONBIDAR.

3

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION, NORTH ZONE, BIJAPUR.


AND:

SRI DILIPAKANNAS/O ANNA RAO,AGE: MAJOR,R/O NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION,MANGAL PETH, BIDAR.

…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.27014/2005 (L-TER) AND ALLOW THEWRIT PETITION NO.27014/2005 AND DISMISS THE AWARDPASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ON 29.11.2004 INREFERENCE NO.684/2000.

W A NO. 50378/2012

BETWEEN:


2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERM.I. SUB-DIVISION CHINCHOLI,GULBARGA DISTRICT.

… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

4

AND:

SRI SIDRAMAPPA S/O BHIMRAOBEERANAHALLI,AGE: 52 YEARS,OCC: EX-WATCHMANSPL. M.I. SUB-DIVISION,BEERNAHALLI,R/O SALE BEERANHALLI,TQ: CHINCHOLI,GULBARGA DISTRICT.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.81338-339/2010 (L-TER) AND ALLOWTHE WRIT PETITION NO.81338-339/2010 AND DISMISS THEAWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ON 21.02.2000 INREFERENCE NO.259/1999.

W A NO. 50487/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERBENNITORA PROJECT, R.B.C,SUB-DIVISION NO.1, HEBBAL,TALUK CHITTAPUR,GULBARGA DISTRICT.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KARNATAKADEPARTMENT OF P.W.D.,M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE.


5

AND

SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPAAGE: MAJOR,OCC: NIL,R/O VILLAGE AND POST NAGUR,CHITAPUR TALUK,GULBARGA DISTRICT.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNEDSINGLE JUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN THE WRIT PETITIONNO.9481/2008M AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES.

W A NO. 50544/2012

BETWEEN:

DILIP KANNAS/O ANNARAOAGE: 50 YEARS,R/O NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION,MANGAL PET,BIDAR.

… APPELLANT( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION BIDAR – 585102.

6

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION, NORTH ZONE, BIJAPUR. - 586101

…RESPONDENTS( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THEAPPEAL IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OB BACK WAGES ANDCONTINUITY OF SERVICE PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGEIN WRIT PETITION NO.27014/2005 DATED: 15TH JULY 2011WHICH HAS DISPOSED OF ALONG WITH THE WRIT PETITIONNOS. 817/2007, 3059/2007, 3630/2007, 15610/2007,18805/20074, 80871/2009, 81035/2009, 82964/2009,82965/2009, 83025/2009, 80193/2010, 82065/2010 AND80322/2011 (L-TER)

W A NO. 50437/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOROF FORESTS DRY,LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD,NOW WATER SHED,DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,NEAR DDPI OFFICE, BIJAPUR.

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DLDBBIJAPUR NOW DISTRICT WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,WATER SHED DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT BIJAPUR.

3. THE DIRECTOR NOW WATER SHED DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT, VIMA VIKAS,5TH FLOOR, MALLESHWARAM,18TH CROSS, BANGALORE – 3.

7

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPT OFANIMAL HUSBADARY FISHERS &FOREST M S BUILDING BANGALORE – 1.


AND:

SRI BABURAO KRISHNAJI JOSHIAGE: 47 YEARS,OCC: EX. WATCHER MAIL,R/O C/O P.M. KULKARNI,KANALDAS BADAWANE,SAPTAGIRI NIVAS, BIJAPUR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 82956/2009AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO. 82956/2009 AND ALSOSET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,GULBARGA DATED 20.08.2008 IN REF NO.22/2003.

W A NO. 50360/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE SECRETARYDEPT. OF IRRGATION,VIDHANA SOUDHA,DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION, NORTH ZONE,BIJAPUR.

8

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISON,INDUSTRIAL AREA,NAWABAD, BIDAR.


AND:

SRI SIDDARAJS/O SHARNAPPA NAGESHWAR,AGE: 39 YEAS,HOUSE NO.1-2-21,ASTANA RAOD,INSIDE NAYA KAMAN,BIDAR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11669/2007(L-TER) AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11669/2007 ANDUPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, ON06.12.2006 IN REF NO.180/2003.

W A NO. 50427/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE INCHARGE OFFICER,GOVT.SILK MINI FILATURESHIKHAR KHANABIJAPUR

9

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURENAVARASPURBIJAPUR

3. THE COMMISSIONER & DIRECTORDEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE5TH FLOOR,M.S.BUILDINGBANGALORE …APPELLANTS

(BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHARANAMMA W/O SHANKAREPPA NASIAGED ABOUT: 47 YERS,OCC:NIL,R/O:JORAPUR PETH,NEW KUMBAR GALLINEAR JAMBAGI CHALL,BIJAPUR

2. PARVATI W/O GURUPADAPPA KALAGIAGED ABOUT: 53 YEARS,OCC:NIL,R/O:JORAPUR PETH,BANAGAR GALLI,BIJAPUR

3. SARITA W/O BASAVARAJ ADAKIAGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,OCC:NIL,C/O:BAGAPPA NARASAPPA SAJJANSHIKARKHANA,NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITALBIJAPUR

4. LALITA CHANDRAKANT LONI,AGED ABOUT: 33 YEARS,OCC:NIL,C/O:BHIMSHANKAR JABA SIKHARKHANASTATION BACK ROAD,BIJAPUR

10

5. BEBI W/O.RUDRAPPA BAGALKIAGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,OCC:NIL,C/O.BIBIJANW/O.GAIBUSAB JAMADARR/O:KHADI GRAM ODHYOG ROADSAKAF ROJA,BIJAPUR


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TO PRAYING TO

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OF

THIS HON'BLE COURT ORDER DATED 14.07.2011 IN THE WRIT

PETITION NO. 82271/2009 (L-TER) AND ALSO SET AISDE THE

AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA DATED

27.08.2008 IN THE KID NO. 11/2001.

W A NO. 50369/2011

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,BIDAR.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGAION DEPARTMENT,NORTH-ZONE,BIJAPUR.

3. THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF IRRIGAION,VIDHANA SOUDHA,BANGALORE.


11

AND:

ASHOK KUMAR S/O VISHWANATH WADEGRIAGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O AT H.NO.9-4-28,KHAJI COLONY,GANDHI GUNJ ROAD,PETROL BUNK BIDAR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11395/2007(L-TER) AND AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THELABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 03.07.2006 IN REF.NO.108/2002 AND ALLOWE THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

W A NO. 50375/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, BIDAR.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGAION DEPARTMENT, NORTH-ZONE, BIJAPUR.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,INDUSTRIAL AREA,NAWABAD,BIDAR. … APPELLANTS

( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

12

AND:

MALLIKARJUN S/O SIDRAMAPPAAGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O H.NO.12/2002,JANGAL KOI,GANDHI GUNJ BIDAR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 11670/2007(L-TER) AND AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THELABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 06.12.2006 IN REF.NO.109/2002 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

W A NO. 50282/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD SUB-DIVISION NO.1PUBLIC GARDER, GULBARGA

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERP.W.D DIVISION OFFICEUNDER BRIDGE ROADGULBARGA

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEERPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTDHARWAD

13

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTPUBLIC WORKERS DEPARTMENTM.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001


AND:

1. SRI AMEER ALI, S/O MASHAK SABAGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS,OCC: NILR/O C/O MOINUDDINTELECOM DEPARTMENT MAHEBOOB NAGGERHAGARGA ROAD GULBARGA

2. SMT. KAMALABAIW/O MALLAPPA MALLABADI,AGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,OCC: NIL, R/O NAGANAHALLITALUK AND DISTRICT : GULBARGA


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 84525/2010 (L-TER) AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOURCOURT AT GULBARGA ON 16.06.2006 IN REF. NO. 58/2005.

14

W A NO. 50275/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE HORTICULTURE ASSISTANT (S.S.)LINGASUGUR, TALUK, LINGSUGURRAICHUR DISTRICT.

2. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOROF HORICULTURE (S.S.)RAICHUR.

3. THE DIRECTOR OF HORICULTUREDEPARTMENT, LALBAGHBANGALORE.


AND:

SHIVAKUMAR S/O ADIVEPPA KOLKURAGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O KASABA LINGASUGUR,LINGASUGUR TALUK,DISTRICT. RAICHUR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9982/2007 (L-TER)AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON29.11.2004 IN REF. NO. 298/2000.

15

W A NO. 50283/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASS.T EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD SUB-DIVISION NO.3SHORAPUR TALUKSHORAPUR DISTRICTGULBARGA.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTM.S.BUILDINGBANGALORE.


AND:

BASAPPA S/O MALLAPPAAGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O KOLLUR,TQ: SHORAPUR,GULBARGA DISTRICT.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8561/2008.

16

W A NO. 50283/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GULBARGA.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERI SUB DIVISION,IRRIGATION DEPARTMENTGULBARGA

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,ANANDARAO CIRCLE,BANGALORE.

4. THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,M.S.BUILDING,AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,BANGALORE-560001.


AND:

SRI JAGANATHS/O RUDRAMUNI MATH,OCC: EX LITERATE MAJDOOR,R/O KINNI SADAK,TALUK AND DIST: GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT( SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 20399/2007 (L-

17

TER) AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOURCOURT AT GULBARGA ON 18.04.2007 IN REFERENCENO.1669/2003.

W A NO. 50515/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE SERICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERTECHNICAL SERVICE CENTRE,BIDAR

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE,NOUBAD,BIDARTQ & DISTRICT

3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR SERICULTURE& DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE,5TH CROSS, M.S.BUILDING,DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHIBANGALORE.


AND:

DATTATRAYA S/O GOPALRAOAGED ABOUT: 38 YEARS,OCC: NIL, R/O MANNNAHALLI,TQ & DIST: BIDAR.

…RESPONDENT( SRI DATTATRAYA (PARTY IN PERSON) )

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 82272/2007 (L-TER) AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOURCOURT AT GULBARGA ON 18.12.2008 IN REFERENCE NO39/2005.

18

W A NOs. 50371/2012 & 50441-442/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE CHIEFENGINEERMJNOR IRRIGATION(NORTH)ZONE,BIJAPUR

2. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.MI SUB DIVISION, CHINCHOLIGULBARGA DISTRICT.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,M.I.BIDAR


AND:

SRI RAVINDRA KUMARS/O YESUDAS,EX-SSLC ASSISTANCT,M.I.SUB-DN, CHINCHOLI,R/O CHANDAPUR,TALUK: CHINCHOLI,DIST: GULBARGA.


WRIT APPEALS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE ON 14.07.2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 81335-337/2010(L-TER) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO. 81335-337/2010AND DISMISS THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,GULBARGA ON 04.04.2002 IN KID NO.373/1999.

19

W A NO. 50359/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE EINGINEERSPL.M.I.SUB DIVISION,CHINCHOLITQ:CHINCHOLI, DIST:GULBARGA.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,BIDAR.

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION,BYAPUR.

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTIRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,M.S.BUILDINGBANGALORE-560 001.

… APPELLANTS

( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. A.P.VIJYA S/O PANDURANGA RAOAGED ABOUR: 46 YEARS,OCC: NIL (EX-ASST.ENGINEER SPL.M.ISUB DIVISION,CHINCHOLI)R/O:PANDURANGA NILAYA,PLOT NO,.42GANESH NAGAR,OLD JEWARGI ROAD,GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT( SRI K. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)

20

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 81211/2010(L-TER).

W A NO. 50331/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERCANAL SUB-DIVN, NO.1, KALLURTQ. MANVIDIST. RAICHUR.

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTIRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCESDEVELOPMENTVIDHANA SOUDHABANGALORE – 560001.


AND:

SRI MALLIKARJUN S/O BASSANNAAGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O GANEKAL,DEVADURGA TALUK,RAICHUR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.81044/09 (L-TER) AND AWARD PASSEDBY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 25.10.2008REF.NO.478/1998.

21

W A NO. 50358/2012

BETWEEN:


2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATIONNORTH ZONE BIJAPUR.

3. THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENTIRRIGATION DEPARTMENTVIDHANA SOUDHABANGALORE.


AND:

SRI SANGAPPAS/O GURUNATH SAJJANSHETTY,AGED: 37 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O MUNKI,TALUK: AURAD (B),DISTRICT, BIDAR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11397/2007(L-TER) AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOURCOURT, GULBARGA ON 16.05.2006 IN REF.NO.54/2000 ANDALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION.

22

W A NO. 50376/2012

BETWEEN:


2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENTNORTH ZONE, BAGALKOT ROADBIJAPUR.

3. THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATIONVIKASA SOUDHABANGALORE.


AND:

DHANARAJ S/O SIDARAMAPPA JAYAPPAAGE: 39 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O H.NO.10/47,SANGAMESHWAR NIVAS,NEAR: DR. T.A.PATIL,BEHIND COURT,GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT( RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.11392/2007(L-TER) AND OTHER CONNECTED CASSED AND ALLOW THEWRIT PETITION NO. 11392/2007 AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE

23

AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON03.07.2006 IN REF. NO.137/2003.

W A NO. 50361/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGH WAYS,BIJAPUR DIVISION,STATION ROAD, BIJAPUR.

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERNATIONAL HIGH WAYS,SUB DIVISION NO.1BIJAPUR.

3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPUBLIC WORK PORT &INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPT.,K.T.CIRCLEBANGALORE –1.

4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTPUBLIC WORKS PORT &INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENTM.S. BUILDINGBANGALORE – 1.


AND:

CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NAGAPA SAVALAGIAGE: 45 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O BANJARA NAGGER,OPPOSITE MUGALKHOD MATH,SOLAPUR ROAD, BIJAPUR. RESPONDENT

( SRI R.B. ANNEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

24

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.82957/2009 (L-TER) AND AWARDPASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 18.10.2008REF.NO.16/05.

W A NO. 50370/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERK.P.C.WRD DIVN, NO.1,BIDAR.

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER WRDIRRIGATION PROJECT,GULBARGA.


AND:

SRI ZULFEGAR ALIS/O SHAIK SHABEER ALI,MAJOR,RESIDENT OF BIDAR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.1855/2006AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED: 21.11.2008 PASSEDBY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA IN REFERENCENO.235/2002 AND ALLOWE THE ABOVE WRIT PETITIONS.

25

W A NO. 50416/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORM/S KRISHNA BHAGYA,JALANIGAM LTD.III FLOOR,K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE – 1.

…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI. ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEVENDRAS/O CHANDRAMAPPA NAGARALAGE: 38 YEARS,OCC: NIL,AT POST KEMBHAVI,TQ. SHORAPUR,DISTRICT GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT( SRI K. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.82065/2010 (L-TER) CONSEQUENTLYTHE AWARD DATED 6.3.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,GULBARGA IN REF.NO.46/2007 AT ANNEXURE-A.

W A NO. 50514/2012

BETWEEN:1. OFFICER INCHARGE OF

GOVERNMENT SILKFARMSINDAGI, DIST: BIJAPUR.

26

2. THE ASS.T DIRECTOR OF SERICULTUREBIJAPUR.

3. THE COMMISSIONER & DIRECTORDEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE5TH FLOOR,M.S. BUILDING,BANGALORE.


AND:

CHATURSING S/O RAMSING RAJPUTAGED ABOUT: 36 YEARS,OCCU: X-EMPLOYEE,R/O AMBIGER CHOUDAYYA GALLINEAR RAM NIVAS,SINDAGI,DIST: BIJAPUR.

…RESPONDENT( RESPONDENT SERVED)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.82078/2010 (L-TER) AND SET ASIDETHE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON13.12.2009 IN REF. NO.52/1999.

W A NO. 50284/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOROF SERICULTURE JEWARGI

27

2. THE SERICULTURE EXTENSIONOFFICER TECHNICAL SERVICECENTER SHAHAPURGULBARGA DISTRICT.


AND:

SRI., HANMANTHS/O RAYAPPA CHANDLAPURAGED ABOUT: 45 YEARSR/O HALISAGARSHAHAPUR TALUKGULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT( BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 14.07.2011 IN WRITPETITION NO.80167/2009 (L-TER) AND ALSO SET ASIDE THEAWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON26.08.2002 IN KID NO.105/2000.

W A NO. 50280/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMUISSIONERGULBARGA

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD DIVISIONNEAR MOHAN LODGEUNDER BRIDGE,JEWARGI ROAD, GULBARGA.

28

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD SUB-DIVISION NO.1PUBLIC GARDER GULBARGA


AND:

SMT. NAGAMMA W/O RAYAPPAAGE: 36 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O HIRAPUR,TQ & DIST. GULBARGA.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRITAPPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SINGLEJUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT ON 14.07.2011 IN WRITPETITION NO.80394/2010 (L-TER) AND DISMISS THE WRITPETITION NO.80394/2010 AND UP HOLD THE AWARD PASSEDBY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 28.10.2009 INREFERENCE NO.110/208.

W A NO. 50484/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD SUB DIVISIONNO.3, SHORAPUR TALAUKSHORAPURDIST GULBARGA.

29

2. THE SECRETARYPUBLIC WOKS DEPARTMENTM.S. BUIDLINGBANGALORE.


AND:

MAHEBOOBSHA S/O RASOOLSHAAGE MAJOR, OCC: NILR/O. C/O. C .G ANGADI CONVENORDAILY WAGE WORKERS FEDERATIONRANGAMPET SURPURTALUK SURPUR,DIST GULBARGA.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 3059/2007AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.3059/2007 AND DISMISSTHE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT ON 18.05.2006 INREF. NO.62/1997.

W A NO. 50409/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORM/S KRISHNA BHAGYA JALANIGAM LTD.III FLOOR, PWD ANNEX, K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE - 1REPTD. BY HIS AUTHORISED

30

REPRESENTATIVE COMPANYKBJNL SECRETORYBANGALORE.

…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

CHANDRASHEKAR S/O TIMMANNAAGE: 39 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O: C/O. HANUMANTHRAYA DRIVERUKP CAMP HUNASAGI,TQ. SHORAPAURDIST. GULBARGA – 585223.

…RESPONDENT( RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 82964/2009(L-TER) PRODUCED CONSEQUENTLY THE AWARD DATED.27.06.2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA INREF. NO.204/2002, PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A IN WRITPETITION.

W A NO. 50417/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORKRISHNA BHAGYA JALANIGAM LTD.III FLOOR, PWD ANNEX,K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE – 1REPRESENTED BY ITSCOMPANY SECRETARY

…APPELLANT

31

( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SHRI MARUTHIRAOS/O ANANDRAO KAMTKARAGE: 47 YEARS,OCC; NILR/O NEAR B. D. SUBBAYYA'S HOUSEBHAGYANAGAR, KOPPAL,DIST. KOPPAL.

…RESPONDENT(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.15610/2007 (L-TER) ANDCONSEQUENTLY THE AWARD DATED:25.04.2007 PASSED BYTHE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA IN KID NO. 46/02 C/WREF.NO.203/02 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE –A IN WRITPETITION.

W A NO. 50374/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORKRISHNA BHAGYA JALANIGAM LTD.REGISTERED OFFICEPWD OFFICE, ANNEX,3RD FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE


AND:

32

ABDUL SAMADS/O MOHAMMADR/O GULBARGA,C/O SAMEER V. KULKARNI,OPP: DISTRICT COURT KULKARNI,BAGALKOT ROAD,BIJAPUR


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.242/2007 (L-TER) AND PASS AN ORDEROR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED:18.08.2006PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, IN REF. NO. 303/1998.

W A NO. 50281/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONERGULBARGA.

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERP.W.D. DIVISION,NEAR MOHAN LODGE,UNDER BRIDGE,JEWARGI ROAD,GULBARGA.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERPWD SUB-DIVISION NO.1,PUBLIC GARDERN, GULBARGA

…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, GOVT. ADVOCATE)

AND:

33

KALLAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA PUJARIAGE: 46 YEARS,OCC:NILR/O GOBBORTQ & DIST: GULBARGA


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.80395/2010 (L-TER) AND AWARDPASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, GULBARGA ON 28.10.09REF.NO.132/08.

W A NO. 50281/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERU.K.P. REHABILITATION CENTRE,SUB-DIVISION NO.3BILAGI AT BILAGI,BAGALKOT DISTNOW MERGED IN OFFICE OFASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,REHABILITATION CENTRE,SUB-DIVISION,NO.5 BILGI,BAGALKOT DIST

2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER UKPREHABILITATION CENTER,DIVISION NO.2,MAT ALMATTI,TALUK B. BAGEWADI,DIST. BIJAPURNOW REPRESENTED BY THEEXECUTIVE ENGINEER,UKP REHABILITATION CENTRE,

34

DIVN. NO.3 CAMP: JAMKHANDI

3. THE COMMISSIONER UKPLAND ACQUISITION,REHABILITATION & RECONSTRUCTIONAND EX-OFFICIO,SECRETARY TO GOVT.OF KARNATAKA,DEPT. OF REVENUE,NAVANAGAR,BAGALKOT AT BAGALKOT.

…APPELLANTS( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SAIBANNA @ SOMANNAS/O BALAPPA BIDARI,AGE: 45 YEARS,OCC: NIL R/O KATAKARI ONI,BILAGI, TQ. BILAGI,DIST BHAGALKOT.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.81035/2009 (L-TER) CONSEQUENTLYTHE AWARD DATED: 14.08.2008 PASSED BY THE LABOURCOURT, BIJAPUR IN REF.NO.5/2005 AT ANNEXURE-A.

W A NO. 50373/2012

BETWEEN:

1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEERUKP SUB DIVISION NO.1,RENAMED AS K.B.J.N.L. ALMATTI.

35

2. KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,REPR. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,REGISTERED OFFICE,PWD OFFICE, ANNEX.,3RD FLOOR, K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALOREBY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY

…APPELLANTS( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

APPASAHEB S/O MUDAKAPPAKUMBAR,AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O BIJAPUR,C/O V G KULKARNI,ADVOCATE,CHANDA BAWDI ROAD,BIJAPUR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE OFTHIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.80193/2010 (L-TER) AND THE AWARD DATED: 05.09.2009 PASSED BY THELABOUR COURT, AT BIJAPUR IN REF.NO.28/01.

W A NO. 50410/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORM/S KRISHNA BHAGYA JALNIGAM LTD,III FLOOR, PWED ANNEX,

36

K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE –1.REP BY HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVECHIEF ENGINEER, KBJNL,O & M ZONE,NARAYANAPUR TALUK,SHORAPUR DISTRICT,GULBARGA.


AND:

SRI RAJKUMAR KRISHNAJI HOTAGARAGE: 29 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O NEAR AP SCHOOL,TALIKOTTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,DISTRICT: BIJAPUR.


WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.82965/2009 (L-TER) ANDCONSEQENTLY THE AWARD DATED: 27.06.2009 PASSED BYTHE LABOUR COURT, AT GULBARGA IN REF.NO.197/02.PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN WRIT PETITION.

W A NO. 50439/2012BETWEEN:

THE CHIEF ENGINEERKBJNL, CANAL ZONE NO.2,KEMBHAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,DISTRICT GULBARGA.


37

AND:

SRI MAQTHUM PATILS/O KASIM PATELAGE: MAJOROCC: NIL,R/O KEMBHAVI,TQ. SHORAPUR,DISTRICT GULBARGA.

…RESPONDENT

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.83025/2009 (L-TER) AND THE AWARDDATED: 26.06.2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,GULBARGA IN REF.NO.271/04.

W A NO. 50377/2012

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTORKRISHNA BHAGYA JALA,NIGAM LTD.,REGISTERED OFFICE,PWED OFFICE,ANNEX, 3RD FLOOR,K.R. CIRCLE,BANGALORE,BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY.


AND:

SUDHEENDRA S/O VASANTACHARYACHIMMALLAGI,

38

AGE: MAJOR,OCC: NIL,R/O CHIMMALLAGI HOUSE,NEAR SBIALAMATTI, DAM SITE,TQ: B. BAGEWADI,DISTRICT: BIJAPUR.

…RESPONDENT

WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THEKARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THEORDER DATED 15.07.2011 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE INTHE WRIT PETITION NO.80871/2009 (L-TER) AND THE AWARDDATED: 2.9.2008 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR INREF.NO.31/2000.

THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON PRONOUNCEMENTAFTER THEY WERE HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,NARAYANA SWAMY, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Judgment

All these appeals are filed against the common order

passed in the writ petitions, which were filed by the appellants,

being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the

Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the respondent-

workmen and payment of consequential benefits. The learned

Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions.

2. The respondent-workmen raised an industrial dispute

before the Labour Court contending that they had been working

for the appellant from 1.1.1981 till the date of discontinuation

39

or retrenchment and the said impugned action is alleged to be

in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The appellants urged in the writ petitions that the

respondent-workmen were never engaged as daily Mazdoors and

hence question of retrenchment did not arise and despite

placing of sufficient materials and evidence, the Labour Court

has failed to consider them in a proper perspective. It was also

contended that the appellant establishment was not an industry

and hence the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the

claims. There was inordinate delay in approaching the Labour

Court by the respondent-workmen and the Labour Court has

failed to consider the objections filed by the appellant in respect

of the delay.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent-workmen

supported the orders impugned in these writ appeals.

5. The questions that arise for our consideration are:

(i) Whether the Labour Court has erred in not

dismissing the claim petitions on the ground of

inordinate delay?

(ii) Whether the impugned orders call for interference?

40

Our answers would be in favour of the appellant for the

following reasons:

6. Though there is no delay applicable to the Labour

Court, but it does not exclude the Labour Court in examining

the inordinate and unexplained delay. In a case where the

provisions are silent as to application of Limitation Act, the

courts or Tribunals have to consider the fact of reasonability.

The person whose rights either statutory or fundamental, if they

have been infringed, he has three options, to approach the Civil

Court, Labour Court or the High Court. If the limitation is not

applicable to the High Court or any other Court for that matter,

then what would be the limitation if the aggrieved approaches

the civil court is the time to be considered as the reasonable

time. Though there is no hard and fast rule for applicability of

limitation for the purpose of approaching the civil court, but the

courts have to consider the delay or laches on the background

of facts and circumstances. Especially in respect of the High

Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sudama Devi Vs.,

Commissioner & Others reported in (1983) 2 SCC 1) held that

41

in any event, one thing is clear and beyond doubt that no such

period of limitation can be laid down either under Rules made

by the High Court or by practice. In every case, it would be

decided on the facts and circumstances, whether the petitioner

is guilty of laches and that would have to be done without

taking into account any specified period as a period of

limitation. There may be cases, even a short delay may be fatal

while there may be cases where even the long delay may not be

evidence of laches on the part of the petitioner. This judgment

throws light that the delay is not applicable to the court and the

same has to be considered in a given facts and circumstances.

7. In (S S Moghe & others vs., Union of India & Others

reported in (1981) 3 SCC 271, it has been held at Para No.23

that a party seeking intervention and aid of this Court under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcing of his

fundamental rights, should exercise due diligence and approach

this Court within a reasonable time, after the cause of action

arose and if there has been an undue delay on his part, this

Court has undoubted discretion to deny him the relief.

42

8. In R S Makashi & others vs., I M Menon & Others,

reported in (1982) 1 SCC 379 referring the judgment reported in

(1969) 2 SCR 824 at Para 69 it is held that the constitution is

silent on this point, nor is there any statute of limitation

expressly applicable but nevertheless on grounds of public

policy, I would hold that this court should not lend its aid to a

litigant even under Article 32 of the Constitution in a case of

inordinate delay in asking for relief and question of delay

normally to be measured by the periods fixed for the institution

of suits as per the Limitation Act. By referring the reported

judgment in State of M.P vs., Bhailal Bhai 1964(6) SCR 261 it

was observed that “the maximum period fixed by the legislature

as the time within which the relief of a suit in a civil court must

be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard

by which the delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be

measured”.

9. The learned Government Advocate for the appellant

submits that the respondents who approached the Labour

Court, they approached with enormous delay and unexplained

delay and the same made them disentitle to place reliance on

43

any materials to prove their claim. The appellant has furnished

the statement consisting of date of appointment, dismissal and

date on which the claims were made before the Labour Court

and the relief granted etc., which is reproduced here under:

Sl

No

Writ

Appeals

Date of

appointment

Date of

termination

Date of

preferring

reference

Date of

order in

reference

Date of

order in

Writ

petition

Judgment/order in writ

petitions

1. 50509/2012 10.04.1984 16.05.1987 2001 05.08.2008 14.07.2011 Monitory

compensation of

Rs.75,000/- in lieu of

reinstatement

2. 50306/2012 26.11.1986 25.06.1989 28.05.2003 18.04.2007 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without

back wages, without

continuity of service

3. 50515/2012 1982 30.09.1987 1998 19.12.2003 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without

back wages, without



back wages, without


5. 50359/2012 01.01.1986 07.03.1991 2007 30.12.2009 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with


without back wages

6. 50331/2012 07.05.1982 30.04.1997 1998 28.09.2001 16.01.2008 Reinstatement &

award

of compensation at

Rs.25,000/-



and back wages



and 25% back wages

9. 50273/2012 01.01.198 31.12.1984 19.11.2004 07.03.2007 14.07.2011 Compensation of

Rs.25,000/- & no

reinstatement

10

.

50378/2012 1985 1987 16.06.1999 21.02.2000 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with

50% back wages from

16.10.1999 with

continuity service

11

.

50487/2012 01.08.1981 01.06.1983 19.12.1997 15.03.2000 12.09.2005 W.P.No.4627/2000

allowed and remitted.

On 24.08.2006 award

on 14.07.2011

44

W.P.No.9481/2008 –

reinstatement without


and without back

wages

12

.

50360/2012 01.03.1990 01.01.1993 17.06.2003 06.12.2006

10 years

14.07.2011 Monitory

compensation of 15

days wages per year

from 1992 to 2006 in

lieu of reinstatement

13

.

50437/2012 1987 01.07.2000 2003 20.08.2008 14.07.2011 Monitory

compensation of

Rs.75,000/- without

reinstatement

14

.

50369/2012 01.02.1990 01.11.1992 24.06.2002 03.07.2006 14.07.2006 Reinstatement without


without back wages

from 3.10.2006

15

.

50427/2012 1999 2000 15.11.2007 2008 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without


without back wages

16

.

50375/2012 01.01.1986 01.08.1987 24.06.2002 06.12.2006 14.07.2011 Monitory

compensation of 15

days wages per year

from 1.1.1986 to

13.11.2006 in lieu of

reinstatement

17

.

50282/2012 09.01.1992 01.08.2001

& 2002

2005 16.06.2009 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with

continuity of without

back wages

18

.



from 1.9.1998

19

.



without back wages

20

.

50361/2012 01.01.1998 31.03.1989 2005 18.10.2008 14.09.2009 Reinstatement with


and no back wages

21

.

50370/2012 03.10.1997 01.09.1998 2002 17.05.2005 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with


from 1.9.1998

22

.

50514/2012 07.10.1985 01.01.1987 1999 06.12.2003 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without


and without back

wages

45

23

.

50284/2012 01.10.1979 21.04.1985 2000 26.08.2002 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without


and without back

wages

24

.

50280/2012 1994 01.03.2002 2008 28.10.2009 14.07.2011 Compensation of Rs.

50,000/- in lieu of

reinstatement

25

.

50484/2012 1.12.1983&01.06.1985

02.06.1985 27.03.1997 06.01.200 15.07.2011 Reinstatement with

50% back wages

26

.

50281/2012 1994 01.03.2002 2004 23.10.2009 14.07.2011 Monitory

compensation of

Rs.50,000/- in lieu and

back wages

27

.

50485/2012 01.01.1986 01.07.1987 26.09.2000 29.11.2004 15.07.2011 Reinstatement and full

back wages

It was contended by the appellant that the workmen worked for

few years on a project base employment and they left the

occupation for about six years to twenty years back. When such

being the case, it is the fundamental duty on the part of the

persons who approach the Court to prove their case of having

worked for a continuous number of years/days as the case may

be.

10. In STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER v. RAVI

KUMAR reported in (2009) 13 SCC 746 this is what stated in

Para Nos.6 to 8.

46

“6. This Court has repeatedly held that stale claims

should not be referred - vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd.

vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and others - 2000(2) SCC

455 and Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka

vs. Shivalinga-2002(10)SCC 167. We may also refer

to the decision in Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner vs. K.T. Rolling Mills - 1995 (1) SCC

181 wherein this Court observed that

“when a power is conferred by statute without

mentioning the period within which it could be

invoked, the same has to be done within reasonable

period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably,

and exercise of the same within reasonable period

would be a facet of reasonableness.”

7. In this case the respondent did not choose to

challenge the termination for 14 years. Merely

because some other daily wagers had got some

relief, he belatedly approached the High Court in

1998.

8. The writ petition was dismissed with an

observation that the respondent was at liberty to

make an application seeking reference. The

contention of the respondent that reference was

made on the direction of the High Court is not

47

therefore correct. As the reference was stale, it

ought to have been rejected on that ground alone.

11. In RAJKUMAR v. JALAGAON MUNICIPAL

CORPORATION (2013(2) SCC 751 Para No.7 this is what is

stated:

7. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by both

the learned Single Judge and Division Bench in

appeal that the appellants were temporarily

appointed on daily wages as and when work was

available and they were not posted on regular basis

against sanctioned post, we do not find any reason

and justification to interfere with the orders passed

by the two courts.

12. In CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY AND

SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS v. T.T. MURALI BABU,

reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 Para No.16 reads as follows:

“16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should

not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required

to weigh the explanation offered and the

acceptability of the same. The court should bear in

mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and

48

equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has

a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but

simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the

primary principle that when an aggrieved person,

without adequate reason, approaches the court at

his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be

under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at

a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it

noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain

circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal

but in most circumstances inordinate delay would

only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at

the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and

inaction on the part of a litigant â?“ a litigant who

has forgotten the basic norms, namely,

â?œprocrastination is the greatest thief of timeâ??

and second, law does not permit one to sleep and

rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and

causes injury to the lis.”

13. In a case where there is inordinate and unexplained

delay and the person approaching the court is not in a position

to prove the nature of appointment and period, it is not proper

to reinstate. In (2013) 5 SCC 136 Para-22 (Assisgtant Engineer,

Rajasthan Developmentk Corporation & another Vs., Gitam

49

Singh), it is held that “it could be said without any fear of

contradiction that this court has not held as an absolute

proposition that in case of wrongful dismissal, the dismissed

employee is entitled to be reinstated in all situations. It is

always the view of this Court that there may be a circumstance

in a case where it may make an inexpedient in order to

reinstate. Therefore, the normal rule that reinstatement in case

of wrongful dismissal has been held to be not without exception.

In so far as wrongful termination, on delay and laches, this

court has laid down that consequential relief would depend on

host of factors namely manner and method of appointment,

nature of employment and length of service. Where the length

of employment as daily wager has not been long, award of

reinstatement should not follow and rather than compensation

should be directed to be paid.

14. Appellant, Karnataka Bhagya Jala Nigam has also

filed batch of appeals against the common order passed by the

learned Single Judge. It is contended by the appellant that the

learned Single Judge has not considered each case on merits

and on account of pooling of cases relating to staff of other

50

departments of the Government, there is injustice caused to the

appellant. Specific points urged in the case before the learned

Single Judge if that had been gone into in detail, the result of

the case should have been in favour of the appellant company.

It is contended that the respondents were engaged in contract

work and hence the same was not an industry for the purpose of

jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In support of his submission,

the learned counsel referred the judgment reported in 2005 SCC

(L&S) 628, where it has been held that when there are no

regular posts with the employer and the work is of temporary

nature, award of reinstatement would be incorrect as in the case

of the appellant. It is further submitted that the respondents

were appointed on daily wage, are not entitled for reinstatement.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred the

decision in State of Himachal Pradesh vs., Suresh Kumar Verma

(1996) 7 SCC 562 and submitted the same has been followed in

Umadevi’s case and held that the High Court or Labour Court

will not become a new mode of recruitment. The learned Judge

has erred in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant

51

without examining the grounds urged more particularly the legal

grounds and also on question of delay.

15. In Mypower Mazdoor Welfare Union Vs., Secretary and

Commissioner, reported in ILR 1997 KAR 2071 at para No.8, it

is stated that “on perusal of the Court order will clearly indicate

that the government had ventured to adjudicate the dispute

itself and declined to make reference on the ground of delay and

laches, which is the duty and function of the Labour Court,

Board or Tribunal. The adjudication by the Government cannot

be termed to be administrative act but has to be termed as a

judicial pronouncement of the rival claims of the parties, which

admittedly is beyond the scope of powers vesting in the

Government u/s 10 of the Act.”

16. In (2005) SCC (L&S) 628 (Madyamik Shiksha Parishat

U.P. vs., Anil Kumar Misara & others, Para-5 reads as follows:

“5. We are unable to uphold the order of the High

Court. There were no sanctioned posts in existence

to which they could be said to have been appointed.

The assignment was an ad hoc one which

anticipated spent itself out. It is difficult to envisage

for them, the status of workmen on the analogy of

52

the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,

importing the incidents of completion of 240 days'

work. The legal consequences that flow from work

for that duration under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 are entirely different from what, by way of

implication, is attributed to the present situation by

way of analogy. The completion of 240 days' work

does not, under that law import the right to

regularisation. It merely imposes certain obligations

on the employer at the time of termination of the

service. It is not appropriate to import and apply

that analogy, in an extended or enlarged form here.”

17. In (2006) SCC (L&S) 753 (State of Karnataka Vs.,

Umadevi) Paras 29 & 30, Para 43, 45 & 47:

“29. In Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil

Kumar Mishra and Others [AIR 1994 SC 1638], a

three judge bench of this Court held that ad hoc

appointees/temporary employees engaged on ad

hoc basis and paid on piece-rate basis for certain

clerical work and discontinued on completion of

their task, were not entitled to reinstatement or

regularization of their services even if their working

period ranged from one to two years. This decision

indicates that if the engagement was made in a

particular work or in connection with particular

53

project, on completion of that work or of that project,

those who were temporarily engaged or employed in

that work or project could not claim any right to

continue in service and the High Court cannot direct

that they be continued or absorbed elsewhere.

30. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar

Verma (1996 (1) SCR 972), a three Judge Bench of

this Court held that a person appointed on daily

wage basis was not an appointee to a post

according to Rules. On his termination, on the

project employing him coming to an end, the Court

could not issue a direction to re-engage him in any

other work or appoint him against existing

vacancies. This Court said:

"It is settled law that having made rules of

recruitment to various services under the State or to

a class of posts under the State, the State is bound

to follow the same and to have the selection of the

candidates made as per recruitment rules and

appointments shall be made accordingly. From the

date of discharging the duties attached to the post

the incumbent becomes a member of the services.

Appointment on daily wage basis is not an

appointment to a post according to the Rules."

54

Their Lordships cautioned that if directions are

given to re-engage such persons in any other work

or appoint them against existing vacancies, "the

judicial process would become another mode of

recruitment dehors the rules."

43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of

equality in public employment is a basic feature of

our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core

of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be

disabled from passing an order upholding a

violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking

of the need to comply with the requirements of

Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.

Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public

employment, this Court while laying down the law,

has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment

is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper

competition among qualified persons, the same

would not confer any right on the appointee. If it is a

contractual appointment, the appointment comes to

an end at the end of the contract, if it were an

engagement or appointment on daily wages or

casual basis, the same would come to an end when

it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee

could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry

55

of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified

that merely because a temporary employee or a

casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond

the term of his appointment, he would not be

entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made

permanent, merely on the strength of such

continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as

envisaged by the relevant rules. It is not open to the

court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance

of temporary employees whose period of

employment has come to an end or of ad hoc

employees who by the very nature of their

appointment, do not acquire any right. High Courts

acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption,

regularization, or permanent continuance unless the

recruitment itself was made regularly and in terms

of the constitutional scheme. Merely because, an

employee had continued under cover of an order of

Court, which we have described as 'litigious

employment' in the earlier part of the judgment, he

would not be entitled to any right to be absorbed or

made permanent in the service. In fact, in such

cases, the High Court may not be justified in issuing

interim directions, since, after all, if ultimately the

56

employee approaching it is found entitled to relief, it

may be possible for it to mould the relief in such a

manner that ultimately no prejudice will be caused

to him, whereas an interim direction to continue his

employment would hold up the regular procedure for

selection or impose on the State the burden of

paying an employee who is really not required. The

courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not

interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of

its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities or

lend themselves the instruments to facilitate the

bypassing of the constitutional and statutory

mandates.

44. xxx xxx xxx

45. While directing that appointments, temporary or

casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts

are swayed by the fact that the concerned person

has worked for some time and in some cases for a

considerable length of time. It is not as if the person

who accepts an engagement either temporary or

casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his

employment. He accepts the employment with eyes

open. It may be true that he is not in a position to

bargain -- not at arms length -- since he might have

been searching for some employment so as to eke

out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But

57

on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to

jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment

and to take the view that a person who has

temporarily or casually got employed should be

directed to be continued permanently. By doing so,

it will be creating another mode of public

appointment which is not permissible. If the court

were to void a contractual employment of this

nature on the ground that the parties were not

having equal bargaining power, that too would not

enable the court to grant any relief to that employee.

A total embargo on such casual or temporary

employment is not possible, given the exigencies of

administration and if imposed, would only mean

that some people who at least get employment

temporarily, contractually or casually, would not be

getting even that employment when securing of such

employment brings at least some succor to them.

After all, innumerable citizens of our vast country

are in search of employment and one is not

compelled to accept a casual or temporary

employment if one is not inclined to go in for such an

employment. It is in that context that one has to

proceed on the basis that the employment was

accepted fully knowing the nature of it and the

consequences flowing from it. In other words, even

58

while accepting the employment, the person

concerned knows the nature of his employment. It is

not an appointment to a post in the real sense of the

term. The claim acquired by him in the post in which

he is temporarily employed or the interest in that

post cannot be considered to be of such a magnitude

as to enable the giving up of the procedure

established, for making regular appointments to

available posts in the services of the State. The

argument that since one has been working for some

time in the post, it will not be just to discontinue

him, even though he was aware of the nature of the

employment when he first took it up, is not one that

would enable the jettisoning of the procedure

established by law for public employment and

would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of

constitutionality and equality of opportunity

enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

47. When a person enters a temporary employment

or gets engagement as a contractual or casual

worker and the engagement is not based on a

proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules

or procedure, he is aware of the consequences of the

appointment being temporary, casual or contractual

in nature. Such a person cannot invoke the theory of

59

legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the

post when an appointment to the post could be

made only by following a proper procedure for

selection and in concerned cases, in consultation

with the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the

theory of legitimate expectation cannot be

successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or

casual employees. It cannot also be held that the

State has held out any promise while engaging

these persons either to continue them where they

are or to make them permanent. The State cannot

constitutionally make such a promise. It is also

obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a

positive relief of being made permanent in the post.”

18. The submission of the appellant that the person who

claims regularization has to approach the Labour Court u/s

10(1) of the I.D. Act. It is the burden on him to prove his

entitlement for benefit of Section 25-F of the Act. Failure on the

part of the petitioner approaching the Labour Court within a

reasonable time is fatal to his case and Labour Court should

dismiss it.

19. In the judgment of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Vs.,

Mohammed Rafi & others (2007)) 1 SCC (L&S) 679, the

60

workmen approached the trial court u/s 4-A of the I.D. Act. The

award has been passed holding that Section 25-F of the Act has

been violated and order of termination is illegal. The said order

has been challenged in the writ petition and the writ petition

has been allowed and the order of the Labour Court has been

set aside. Against the said order, writ appeal was filed before

the Division Bench. By the impugned order, writ appeal was

allowed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed at Para No.6

by referring the judgment in Rajasthan State Ganganagar

S.Mills Ltd., Vs., State of Rajasthan (2004) SCC (L&S) 1092 and

Para-7, 8 & 9 read as follows:

“6. Shri Mahale, learned advocate for the appellant

submitted that the division bench ought not to

have interfered with the concurrent findings given

by the award of the labour court dated 27.10.1999

and by the judgment of the learned single judge

dated 7.6.2000. He submitted that there was no

perversity in the findings recorded by the labour

court. He submitted that full opportunity was given

to the management to produce its records. He

submitted that the management suppressed the

Nominal Muster Rolls (NMRs) which indicated that

61

the appellant had worked for the entire period

between 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994. It was

submitted that in any event, the entire record was

not produced before the labour court despite the

management being asked by the court to do so

and, therefore, the labour court was right in

coming to the conclusion that the management

had suppressed its records from the court. In the

circumstances, it was urged that the division

bench ought not to have interfered with the

concurrent findings of fact recorded by the labour

court in its award dated 27.10.1999. Learned

advocate further contended that the workman had

stepped into witness box; that he had tendered and

produced the certificate (Ex.W1) and that both the

labour court and the learned single judge had

accepted its correctness and, therefore, the division

bench ought not to have interfered with the said

findings. Learned advocate further contended that

the appellant had worked for 240 days within the

meaning of section 25-F of 1947 Act and his non-

employment constituted retrenchment under

section 2(oo) of the said Act. He contended that the

services of the appellant was terminated in breach

of section 25-F of 1947 Act and, therefore, the

labour court was right in ordering reinstatement.

62

Learned advocate further submitted that no

reasons have been given by the High Court for

disbelieving Ex.W1 and for coming to the

conclusion that Ex.W1 was fabricated document.

Learned advocate further contended that the

division bench of the High Court had erred in

placing reliance on the judgment of this court in

the case of Range Forest Officer (supra), as in the

present case, the appellant Q workman had

entered the witness box and had produced cogent

evidence in the form of certificate Ex.W1 which

shows that the appellant had worked between

22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994 as a daily wager. Hence,

the learned advocate submitted that the division

bench had erred in interfering with the concurrent

findings of fact.

7. Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned advocate for the

management, on the other hand, urged that the

"Irrigation department" was not an "industry" as

defined under section 2(j) of the 1947 Act. She

contended that the judgment of this court in the case

of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A.

Rajappa reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213 has been

referred to the larger bench by a referral order dated

5.5.2005 in the case of State of U.P. v. Jai Bir Singh

63

reported in (2005) 5 SCC 1 and consequently, she

requested this court to adjourn the matter sine die.

On the merits of the matter, learned advocate

submitted that the burden of proof was on the

appellant to show that he had worked for 240 days in

the preceding 12 months prior to his alleged

retrenchment; that the appellant-workman in the

present case had neither produced the letter of

appointment nor letter of termination and, therefore,

there was nothing on record to support his case of

having worked for 240 days within the meaning of

"continuous service" as defined under section 25-B of

the 1947 Act. Learned advocate further contended

that Ex.W1 contained discrepancies and, therefore,

the High Court was right in holding that the said

document was fabricated. Learned advocate further

contended that in any event Ex.W1 does not indicate

as to whether the workman had worked for each and

every day between 22.11.1988 and 20.6.1994 or

whether he had worked for 240 days during the

aforestated period and in the circumstances, the

labour court had erred in coming to the conclusion that

the appellant had worked for 240 days in the year

preceding his termination. Therefore, according to the

learned advocate, the workman had failed to

discharge the burden of proving that he had worked

64

for 240 days prior to the termination of his service. In

this connection, reliance was placed on the judgments

of this court in the case of Range Forest Officer

(supra); Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v.

State of Rajasthan & Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC

161, M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram reported in

(2004) 8 SCC 246.

8. At the outset, we may mention that we are not

inclined to adjourn the matter sine die pending the

decision of the larger bench as urged on behalf of the

management, particularly in view of the fact that there

is nothing on record to indicate that the management

had argued the point in question. As stated above, the

labour court had ruled that the "Irrigation department"

was an "industry" in terms of section 2(j) of the 1947

Act. Against the award of the labour court, the

department had filed its writ petition in which the

ground was taken as a plea to the effect that the

Irrigation department was not an industry in terms of

section 2(j) of the said Act. However, there is nothing

in the decision of the learned single judge as well as

in the impugned judgment to show as to whether the

management had argued on this aspect of the case

and, therefore, we are not inclined to await the

decision of the larger bench following referral order in

the case of Jai Bir Singh (supra). Even in the counter

65

affidavit filed before this court, no such plea has been

taken.

9. Now coming to the question of burden of proof as to

the completion of 240 days of continuous work in a

year, the law is well settled. In the case of Manager,

Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani reported

in (2005) 5 SCC 100, the workmen raised a contention

of rendering continuous service between April, 1980 to

December, 1982 in their pleadings and in their

representations. They merely contended in their

affidavits that they had worked for 240 days. The

tribunal based its decision on the management not

producing attendance register. In view of the affidavits

filed by the workmen, the tribunal held that the

burden on the workmen to prove 240 days service

stood discharged. In that matter, a three-judge bench

of this court held that pleadings did not constitute a

substitute for proof and that the affidavits contained

self-serving statements; that no workman took an oath

to state that they had worked for 240 days; that no

document in support of the said plea was ever

produced and, therefore, this court took the view that

the workmen had failed to discharge the burden on

them of proving that they had worked for 240 days.

According to the said judgment, only by reason of non-

response to the complaints filed by the workmen, it

66

cannot be said that the workmen had proved that they

had worked for 240 days. In that case, the workmen

had not called upon the management to produce

relevant documents. The court observed that the initial

burden of establishing the factum of continuous work

for 240 days in a year was on the workmen. In the

circumstances, this court set aside the award of the

industrial tribunal ordering reinstatement.”

20. In the light of the above judgment, we have examined

the grounds urged in the writ appeal and found that the

workmen have also not proved their case before the Labour

Court and consequentially they failed to discharge their burden.

In the circumstances, the judgment referred above squarely

applies to the case of the appellant.

21. In (2003) SCC (L&S) 87 (Assistant Executive Engineer,

Karnataka Vs., Shivalinga), it is held that long delay would

impede the maintenance of record and hence the Labour Court

rightly rejected the reference on the ground of delay.

22. In the light of the proposition of law, the litigant

should approach the Labour Court at the earliest reasonable

point of time. Even if the Limitation Act is not applicable, the

67

reasonable time would cover the field. The Labour Court before

entertaining the claim of the workmen should examine whether

there is an inordinate delay, which entitled it to dismiss the

claim. It is also made clear in the light of the judgments

referred above, it is not the burden on the employer if there is

inordinate delay to rely on his record but it is the primary

burden on the person who approaches the Court. There may be

chance of non-availability of any records in the office. In the

circumstances, the learned Single Judge referred the judgment

in Devandrasingh vs., Municipal Council Sanaur, reported in JT

2011(5) S.C. 333 but the same is not completely applicable in

this case. The facts in that case, the delay and laches and the

burden were not exactly the same as in the present case. In the

circumstances, primarily the Labour Court committed an error

in allowing the claim and the learned Single Judge has not

appreciated the case of the appellant on the ground of delay and

also burden of proof to be discharged by the person approaching

the court. The learned single Judge referred ILR 1997 KAR 983

(The KSRTC Central Offices & Another Vs., Govinda Setty &

Anr.) in which six months of limitation was prescribed is only

68

directory and not mandatory. However, it is held that provisions

of Limitation Act is applicable to the Labour Court.

23. In the light of the discussions made above and the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is

very clear that the Limitation is very much important to

approach the Court. The person, who approaches the court, he

should be very cautious about his right. Though the said

analogy is not applicable to these type of cases where the poor

paid employees are not aware of the legal position to approach,

shall not be sent out. However, one should not forget that long

delay in approaching the Court, he has a fundamental duty to

satisfy the court. Secondly the burden to prove the fact of

having worked for 240 days and also worked for some length of

time and terminated illegally, it is on the person who

approaches the Court. These two things are fatal to the case of

the respondent-workmen. On this aspect we have seriously

examined the case of the respondent-workmen and found that

both order of the learned single Judge as well the judgment and

award of the Labour Court are liable to be quashed.

69

In these circumstances, the appeals succeed and are

accordingly allowed. Both the judgment and award of the

Labour Court and the order of the learned Single Judge are

hereby quashed.

Sd/-JUDGE.

Sd/- JUDGE.

akd*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, …judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/...1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH Dated this the 26 th day of February,

Documents