SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top