The petitioner-Bharat Electronics Limited, a Public

Sector Undertaking of the Government of India under the

Ministry of Defense is before this Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of certiorari to

quash

the

communication

dated

06.04.2021

bearing

No.PÀgÁ/CeÁ/C§Ä/DAiÉÆÃUÀ/¸ÉêÉ/¹Dgï-01/2021-22

(Annexure-A),

directing the petitioner to appear before the first respondent-

3

Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Caste And Scheduled

Tribes (for short “the Commission”).

2.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Ismail Muneeb Musba for

petitioner, Sri.C.Jagadish, learned counsel for respondent No.1,

Sri.G.S.Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as

well

as

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate

Smt.A.R.Sharadamba for respondent No.3. Perused writ petition

papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner is before this Court challenging Annexure-A notice

issued by the first respondent-Commission, directing the petitioner

to appear before the Commission to answer the complaint of the

second respondent. It is submitted that the second respondent

was not an employee of the petitioner-BEL and he was an

employee of BEL SC/ST Welfare Association, that too on contract

basis. It is submitted that the second respondent was working in

the Association on contract basis from 1990 to 1993. The second

respondent was terminated by the Association in the year 1993.

The dispute raised by the 2^nd respondent was referred to Labour

4

Court in Reference No.83/1995 which came to be dismissed on

24.06.2008.

Against

which,

the

2^nd

respondent

filed

W.P.No.9343/2009 before this Court. This Court, by order dated

22.02.2011 held that the 2^nd respondent is not directly employed

by the petitioner-BEL, but it directed the respondents to reinstate

respondent No.2 herein. Against the said order, the petitioner

herein filed writ appeal which came to be dismissed. Thereafter,

complaining non-reinstatement, the 2^nd respondent approached

the

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner.

The

Deputy

Labour

Commissioner, by order dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure-Z) rejected

the request of the second respondent. Thereafter, it is stated that

the 2^nd respondent instituted several proceedings including

criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent

filed a complaint before the first respondent-Commission vide

Annexure-C wherein he has prayed for reinstatement with

back wages.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

first respondent-Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint with regard to service conditions of an employee and

further he submits that the first respondent-Commission is not

5

conferred with power to adjudicate a dispute between the employer

and employee. The Commission is conferred with power under

Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 (for short “2002 Act”) and the

Commission could perform its functions within the ambit of

Section 8 of the 2002 Act and Rule 10 of and the Karnataka State

Commission for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Rules,

2012 (for short “2012 Rules”). Further, learned counsel for the

petitioner

would

submit

that

the

matter

with

regard

to

reinstatement and back wages has attained finality before this

Court and the Commission cannot sit as an Appellate Authority

over the decision of this Court. He submits, that the proceedings

before

the

first

respondent-Commissioner

is

liable

to

be

terminated. Hence, prays for allowing the writ petition.

5.

Learned

counsel

Sri.G.S.Naveen

Kumar

for

Sri.S.B.Mukkanappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 submits that the first respondent-Commission has power and

authority to enquire into the matter by calling for the records.

Therefore,

proceedings

initiated

by

the

first

respondent-

Commission is maintainable and this Court need not entertain the

6

writ petition at this stage. Further, he submits that the pe