The

order

dated

27.08.2019

in

W.P.No.205547/2016 has given rise to this writ

appeal.

2.

Tangential tracing of the background

facts

shows

that

termination

of

the

first

respondent from the service of appellants' bank on

19.06.2001 resulted in her raising a dispute before

the

Joint

Registrar of

Co-operative

Societies,

under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative

Societies Act (‘CS Act’ for short). The Joint

Registrar passed an order on 28.10.2006 rejecting

the

dispute.

Aggrieved

by

this

order,

she

approached

Karnataka

Appellate

Tribunal

(‘Tribunal’ for short) by preferring an appeal which

was registered as Appeal No.12/2007. By order

dated

11.08.2016,

the

Tribunal

allowed

the

appeal, set-aside the order of Joint Registrar

and

set-aside

the

order

of

termination,

and

directed the first respondent’s reinstatement

4

in to the service of appellants' bank with full back

wages. The appellants questioned the order of the

Tribunal by filing Writ Petition No.205547/2016.

The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ

petition by modifying the order of the Tribunal

and directed the appellants to pay 75% of the

back wages instead of full back wages from

19.06.2001 till date of reinstatement with all

service and other financial benefits. This is the

order assailed in this writ appeal.

3.

We have heard the arguments of the

learned

Senior

Counsel,

Sri

S.P.Kulkarni

who

appeared

on

behalf

of

Sri

G.G.Chagashetty,

learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ameet

Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel who

argued on behalf of Sri Sanganagouda V Biradar,

appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Mallikarjuna

C Basareddy, learned Government Advocate for

respondent No.2.

5

4.

Sri S.P.Kulkarni, raised various grounds

while assailing the order of the learned Single

Judge. We need not delve on all the grounds

touching the merits of the appeal as Sri Ameet

Kumar Deshpande strongly contended that this

writ appeal is not maintainable.

5.

It was argued by Sri Ameet Kumar

Deshpande that the writ petition filed by the

appellants

was

under

Article

227

of

the

Constitution of India. In the writ petition, the

order passed by the Tribunal was questioned. The

Tribunal essentially exercises judicial functions

and does not take any administrative decisions.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High

Court

exercises

original

jurisdiction,

whereas

under

Article

227,

the

High

Court

exercises

supervisory jurisdiction over all the courts and

Tribunals subordinate to it. Whenever judicial

decisions are assailed under Article 227, intra-

court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka

6

High Court Act is not maintainable. He argued

further that jurisdiction under Article 226 can also

be exercised some times against the orders passed

by the Tribunals, but it all depends on the facts

and

circumstances

and

nature

of

the

order

challenged.

If

it

is

found

that

the

order

challenged in the writ petition is in exercise of

judicial power, it is a writ petition filed under

Article 227, even though the memorandum of writ

petition is labeled as filed under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India. It is the nature

of the order impugned that decides whether writ

petition is filed under Article 226 or 227, and not

its title. Placing reliance on some of the decided

cases which we will refer to later, he argued

vehemently

that

this

writ

appeal

deserves

dismissal as it is not at all maintainable.

6.

Reply of Sri S.P.Kulkarni was that the

order passed by the Tribunal is final according to

Section 9 of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Act

7

and therefore, the writ petition filed challenging

the order of the Tribunal was essentially under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further

replied that though under Article 227 the High

Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction, it cannot

be said that whenever an order of the Tribunal is

challenged in the High Court, it is always under

Article 227. Even under Article 226, the Tribunal’s

decisions can be challenged an