DTD:

27.11.2009

IN

DISPUTE

DATED:27.11.2009

PASSED BY R-2 AT ANNX-K TO THE W.P. AND QUASH THE

ORDER DTD: 14.8.2015 IN APPEAL NO.02/2010 (CS) PASSED BY

THE HON9BLE K.A.T. AT ANNEXURE-U AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

The petitioner-Society is before this Court under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated

27.11.2009

in

Dispute

No.KRC/DDS/05/2005-06

passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-K) and also to

quash Annexure-U, order dated 14.08.2015 in Appeal

No.02/2010 (CS) passed by Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal [for short 8the Tribunal9].

2.

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Somashekar

for

the

petitioner

and

learned

counsel

Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat for Caveator/respondent

No.1.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that the first respondent was a Class-C member

3

to the petitioner-Society and he ceased to be a member

from 04.01.1993, since the bus in which first

respondent was working was sold. Learned counsel

would submit that the first respondent raised a dispute

before the second respondent under Section 70 of the

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 [for short

8the

Act9]

alleging

termination

and

claimed

for

continuation of service as well as financial benefits. The

said dispute was allowed directing the petitioner-society

to reinstate respondent No.1 with all consequential

benefits. The said order of the second respondent was

taken in appeal before the Tribunal in

Appeal

No.02/2010 and the said appeal was dismissed and

order of second respondent was confirmed.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly

contend that the first respondent was not an employee

of the petitioner-society and no material also placed on

record to establish that respondent No.1 was the

employee of petitioner-society except, the order passed

in a proceedings arising under the Minimum Wages Act.

4

Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled

for reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society would submit

that during the pendency of the writ petition, the first

respondent

attained

age

of

superannuation.

The

respondent No.1 would not be entitled for the

backwages since the first respondent was gainfully

employed as LIC Agent. Inviting attention of this Court

to Annexure-Q dated 14.05.2015, he submits that the

first respondent was an LIC Agent from 15.12.1999 and

he was receiving more than Rs.15,000/- as commission

income from LIC. He also invites attention of this Court

to Annexure-R and submits that the first respondent

was Member of Chairman Club of LIC. Thus, he submits

that respondent No.1 was gainfully employed as LIC

Agent and he would not be entitled for backwages.

5.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat for respondent No.1

would not deny that the first respondent was an LIC

Agent from December 1999. However, he submits that

5

the first respondent would be entitled for backwages

from 1993 at least till the first respondent enrolled

himself as LIC Agent in December 1999. It is the

submission of the learned counsel that the first

respondent had not any employment nor he was

gainfully employee, which made him to enroll himself as

LIC Agent. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ

petition.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of writ petition papers, I am of

the view that the petitioner would be liable to pay

backwages to the respondent No.1 from 1993 to

December 1999 till he enrolled himself as LIC Agent.

7.

There is no merit in the contention raised by

the petitioner-society that the respondent No.1 was not

an employee of the petitioner-society. The respondent

No.1 had raised a dispute before the Labour Officer and

Authority

under

the

Minimum

Wages

Act

at

Chikkamagaluru in Case No.9/1994. The Labour Officer

6

and the Competent Authority allowed the said case,

against