2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36654
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT
WRIT PETITION No.30735/2019 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MODEL INFRA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT OF 1956/2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SMK CHAMBERS, 2ND FLOOR
1ST A MAIN ROAD, SECTOR A
NEW TOWN, YELAHANKA
BANGALORE-560 106
REP. BY ITS H.R. DIRECTOR
MR. ROBERT MONIS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTH B.K., ADV.)
AND:
1. MS. CHAITHANYA C
D/O CHANDRAPPA B
R/AT VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
III MAIN ROAD
HUNASAMARANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562 157.
2. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN
NO.107, CAVERY BHAVAN
1ST FLOOR, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009
REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
&RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, AGA FOR R2
R1-SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
2
THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN WHO IS R2 HEREIN,
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO RESUME THE DUTIES OF THE
R1 IN THE POSITION OF THE JUNIOR DESIGN ENGINEER BY
CANCELING
THE
RESIGNATION
CONFIRMATION
LETTER
ISSUED TO HER AND ALSO TO GIVE CONFIRMATION LETTER
WITH EFFECT FROM 01.08.2018 ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company is
before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned
communication
(Annexure-A)
bearing
No.KSCW/Petition/Beng-110/2019-20/6415
dated
28.06.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent3Karnataka
State
Commission
for
Women
(for
short
8the
Commission9), wherein the petitioner is directed to
cancel the resignation of 1st respondent and to resume
her in previous position in the petitioner-Company.
2.
Heard Sri Prashanth B.K., learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri M.V. Ramesh Jois, learned AGA for
3
the 2nd respondent. Respondent No.1 is served and
unrepresented. Perused the writ petition papers.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that 1st respondent was working in the petitioner-
Company as Junior Engineer (Design and Development)
in terms of order of appointment dated 21.08.2017. It
is submitted that 1st respondent submitted her
resignation through mail and the same was accepted by
the petitioner-Company under Annexure 8H9 Mail dated
22.05.2019. On acceptance of resignation, the 1st
respondent was relieved from the services of the
petitioner-Company. Aggrieved by relieving of 1st
respondent from petitioner-Company, on accepting the
resignation, the 1st respondent approached the 2nd
respondent-Commission
by
submitting
complaint
(Annexure-L)
dated
12.06.2019
complaining
harassment at work place. The 2nd respondent-
Commission enclosing a copy of the complaint sought
explanation from the petitioner-Company. Through H.R.
Director,
petitioner-Company
submitted
its
reply.
4
Thereafter, the Commission under Annexure-A directed
the petitioner to cancel 1st respondent9s resignation and
directed to resume her in her previous position in the
petitioner-Company and to forward the action taken
report.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that action of the respondents in issuing impugned
letter
(Annexure-A)
dated
28.06.2019
is
without
jurisdiction,
and
the
Commission
exceeded
its
jurisdiction and authority. Learned counsel would
submit that respondent-Commission is constituted
under Section 3 of the Karnataka State Commission for
Women Act, 1995 (for short 8the 1995 Act9); Section 9
of
the
1995
Act
enumerates
functions
of
the
Commission and Section 10 prescribes the powers of
the Commission. It is his submission that the
Commission is conferred power to investigate and
examine all matters relating to safeguard provided for
women under the Constitution and other Laws; make
recommendations for the effective implementation of
5
safeguard for improving the conditions of women by the
State Government and related functions, but he
submits that the Commission is not conferred with the
power of determining or adjudicating the rights of the
parties. Learned counsel would submit that the
petitioner and 1st respondent are governed by the terms
and conditions of appointment order and contract
entered into between the petitioner and 1st respondent.
The respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction or
authority to determine the rights of petitioner and 1st
respondent. The 2nd respondent Commission could not
have directed the petitioner-Company to cancel the
resignation of the 1st respondent and to resume her in
her previous position. If at all the 1st respondent was
aggrieved by the acceptance of resignation, it was open
for the 1st respondent to initiate appropriate civil
proceedings to enforce her rights under the terms and
conditions of employment. Learned counsel for the
petitioner in support of his submission places reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in BHABANI
6
PRASAD JENA Vs CONVENOR SECRETARY, ORISSA
STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN AND OTHERS reported
in AIR 2010 SC 2851 and further submits that the
Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the provisions of
identical act of Orissa State Commission for Women Act
1993, has held that State Commission is not entrusted
with the power to take up the