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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISIONBIDAR.
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.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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.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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
5
AND
SRI SHIVASHARANAPPA S/O DEVENDRAPPAAGE: MAJOR,OCC: NIL,R/O VILLAGE AND POST NAGUR,CHITAPUR TALUK,GULBARGA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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 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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI BABURAO KRISHNAJI JOSHIAGE: 47 YEARS,OCC: EX. WATCHER MAIL,R/O C/O P.M. KULKARNI,KANALDAS BADAWANE,SAPTAGIRI NIVAS, BIJAPUR.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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 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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SIDDARAJS/O SHARNAPPA NAGESHWAR,AGE: 39 YEAS,HOUSE NO.1-2-21,ASTANA RAOD,INSIDE NAYA KAMAN,BIDAR.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
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
…RESPONDENTS( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
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.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
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
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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
…RESPONDENTS( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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. 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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVAKUMAR S/O ADIVEPPA KOLKURAGE: 34 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O KASABA LINGASUGUR,LINGASUGUR TALUK,DISTRICT. RAICHUR.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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. 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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
BASAPPA S/O MALLAPPAAGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O KOLLUR,TQ: SHORAPUR,GULBARGA DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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. 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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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.
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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
… APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAVINDRA KUMARS/O YESUDAS,EX-SSLC ASSISTANCT,M.I.SUB-DN, CHINCHOLI,R/O CHANDAPUR,TALUK: CHINCHOLI,DIST: GULBARGA.
…RESPONDENT( SRI P. VILASKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISIONBIDAR.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATIONNORTH ZONE BIJAPUR.
3. THE SECRETARY TOGOVERNMENTIRRIGATION DEPARTMENTVIDHANA SOUDHABANGALORE.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI SANGAPPAS/O GURUNATH SAJJANSHETTY,AGED: 37 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O MUNKI,TALUK: AURAD (B),DISTRICT, BIDAR.
…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 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:
1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DIVISIONBIDAR.
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEERMINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENTNORTH ZONE, BAGALKOT ROADBIJAPUR.
3. THE SECRETARYDEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATIONVIKASA SOUDHABANGALORE.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI ZULFEGAR ALIS/O SHAIK SHABEER ALI,MAJOR,RESIDENT OF BIDAR.
…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 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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
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
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. NAGAMMA W/O RAYAPPAAGE: 36 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O HIRAPUR,TQ & DIST. GULBARGA.
…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.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.
…APPELLANTS( BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY GOVT. ADVOCATE)
AND:
MAHEBOOBSHA S/O RASOOLSHAAGE MAJOR, OCC: NILR/O. C/O. C .G ANGADI CONVENORDAILY WAGE WORKERS FEDERATIONRANGAMPET SURPURTALUK SURPUR,DIST GULBARGA.
…RESPONDENT( BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, 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 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
…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
32
ABDUL SAMADS/O MOHAMMADR/O GULBARGA,C/O SAMEER V. KULKARNI,OPP: DISTRICT COURT KULKARNI,BAGALKOT ROAD,BIJAPUR
…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.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
…RESPONDENT(BY SRI P. VILASKUMAR, 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.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.
…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.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.
…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 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.
…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAJKUMAR KRISHNAJI HOTAGARAGE: 29 YEARS,OCC: NIL,R/O NEAR AP SCHOOL,TALIKOTTI, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,DISTRICT: BIJAPUR.
…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.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.
…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
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.
…APPELLANT( BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
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
continuity of service
4. 50371/2012 07.06.1984 31.03.1987 12.08.1999 04.04.2002 17.04.2010 Reinstatement without
back wages, without
continuity of service
5. 50359/2012 01.01.1986 07.03.1991 2007 30.12.2009 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with
continuity of service
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/-
7. 50358/2012 01.08.1985 10.01.1998 29.12.199 16.5.2006 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
and back wages
8. 50376/2012 01.12.1987 31.07.1992 11.11.2002 03.07.2006 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
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
continuity of service
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
continuity of service
without back wages
from 3.10.2006
15
.
50427/2012 1999 2000 15.11.2007 2008 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
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
.
50275/2012 01.08.1988 31.10.1980 16.03.2000 29.11.2004 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
from 1.9.1998
19
.
50283/2012 01.06.1984 01.12.1986 30.07.1998 17.05.2006 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
without back wages
20
.
50361/2012 01.01.1998 31.03.1989 2005 18.10.2008 14.09.2009 Reinstatement with
continuity of service
and no back wages
21
.
50370/2012 03.10.1997 01.09.1998 2002 17.05.2005 14.07.2011 Reinstatement with
continuity of service
from 1.9.1998
22
.
50514/2012 07.10.1985 01.01.1987 1999 06.12.2003 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
and without back
wages
45
23
.
50284/2012 01.10.1979 21.04.1985 2000 26.08.2002 14.07.2011 Reinstatement without
continuity of service
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*