Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
G. NARENDAR, M. NAGAPRASANNA, JJ.
Chikkappa S/o Ramalingappa Masali – Appellant
Versus
The Chief Secretary Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 200108 of 2016
Decided On : 17-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. S.D. Sagari.
For the Respondent: Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi.
The main legal point established is that the petitioner's claim for regularization was not supported by the Apex Court's directions, but he was entitled to benefits under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012.
Headnote:
Regularization - Industrial Disputes Act - 1947, Section 25F - Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, Sections 3 and 4
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a daily wage employee, sought regularization of his services after being terminated and reinstated. The court analyzed the previous orders and the directions given by the Apex Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim for regularization was not supported by the directions of the Apex Court, but considered his case under the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to regularization of his services and the benefits under the Welfare Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's case for regularization was not supported by the Apex Court's directions, but directed the consideration of his case under the Welfare Act, granting him benefits under Section 4 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ appeal, modifying the Single Judge's order to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case under the Welfare Act and grant him all consequential benefits within three months.
JUDGMENT :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
1. Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No. 81636/2011 dated 12.02.2016 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition pertaining to the claim of regularization of the services of the petitioner, the writ petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their nomenclature in the writ petition.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner joined the services of respondent Karnataka Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘KBJNL’ for short) as a daily wage employee in the year 1979 and was terminated on 23.02.1982. On failure of conciliation, the appropriate government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The reference was answered in favour of the petitioner and the order of termination was set aside for want of compliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.
5. This was challenged by the 2nd respondent-KBJNL before this Court in a writ petition, which was allowed and the award of the Labour Court was set aside. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition came to conclude that the writ petitioner had not proved that he had worked continuously for 240 days immediately prior to his termination for invoking section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was further held that the writ petitioner had raised the dispute in the year 1999 whereas his termination was in the year 1982 and there was gross delay in raising the dispute. An appeal was filed before the Division Bench of this Court, which observed that since there was a delay of 16 years in raising the dispute for which no explanation was forthcoming, the order in the writ petition was confirmed.
6. The petitioner challenged both the orders before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1881/2005. This came to be disposed of on 03.04.2006 directing the respondent KBJNL to reinstate the petitioner back as a daily wage employee after the petitioner gave an undertaking before the Hon’ble Apex Court that he would not claim any backwages or interest and would be satisfied if he would be restored to the nominal muster roll after which the petitioner was taken back to the service.
7. After reinstatement, the petitioner began to stake a claim for regularization of his service on the ground that he had completed the requisite number of years of service and that the Hon’ble Apex Court had so directed to consider his case for regularization. Representations were made to the 2nd respondent KBJNL. When they were not considered, the petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 82201/2010 (S-RES) seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his representation favourably. This Court by its order dated 15.09.2010 disposed off the writ petition directing consideration of the representation given by the petitioner expeditiously. Subsequent to the orders passed by this Court, the claim of the petitioner was turned down by issuance of endorsement dated 28.04.2011. This was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 81636/2011 (S-REG) which was dismissed by an order dated 12.02.2016 against which the petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S.D. Sagari and Sri. Sanjay M. Joshi, counsel for the 2nd respondent KBJNL.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court had directed reinstatement into service with backwages and that the award of the Labour Court gets restored by the Apex Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner and would be entitled to be considered for regularization.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for 2nd respondent KBJNL would contend that the petitioner has given up his rights before the Apex Court and the Apex Court directed reinstatement only as a daily wage
