Partly allowed

Amarappa S/O Hanmappa v. the Divisional Controller Nekrtc

Karnataka HC14 Aug 2012WP/80041/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a labour Court order dismissing dismissal petition regarding a KSRTC conductor dismissed for misconduct. The Court held that termination without prior approval under Section 33(2)(b) was void. It modified the award to reinstate the workman without backwages, subject to a pending Division Bench case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order modified; petitioner reinstated with continuity of service and consequential benefits but without backwages subject to pending appeal.

Amarappa S/O Hanmappa Vs the Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

¶7

W.P. No. 80041/2011 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

AMARAPPA S/O HANMAPPA AGE 51 YRS, OCC: NIL R/O VILLAGE HAL BHAVAI POST. GOREBAL TQ. LNGASUGUR DIST. RAICHUR. ... PETITIONER (By Sri. B R PATIL & K RAVINDRA, ADVS.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC RACHUR DIVISON RACIHUR. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. R V NADAGOUDA, ADV. )

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A

¶13

¶14

PRAYER TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2010 IN KID No. 133/2007 AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.01.2010 in KID No. 133/2007 passed by the labour Court at Gulbarga rejecting the claim petition.

¶18

Petitioner was a conductor in the respondent Corporation.

¶19

For misconduct articles of charges were issued enquiry was held and on 05.10.2007 the petitioner was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by this order of dismissal the petitioner raised a dispute before the labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short `the Act') in KID No. 133/2007. On contest the labour Court passed the impugned award dismissing the claim petition. Hence, this writ petition.

¶20

¶21

It is not in dispute that in I.D. No. 148/2005 pending on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, the Charter of Demands raised by the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation is pending. Petitioner herein is a concerned workman. The action of the respondent Corporation in having not sought approval of termination of the petitioner from service by filing an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is void and inoperative in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Jilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Sri. Ram Gopal Sharma, AIR 2002 SC 643. This Court in identical circumstances in W.P. No. 60395/2012 vide order dated 13.07.2012 directed reinstatement and other benefits.

¶22

Learned counsel for petitioner workman submits that the petitioner would give up the full backwages if reinstated into service with consequential benefits and continuity of service within a time frame.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submits

¶24

that the issue relating to Section 33(2)(b) of the Act is pending

¶25

¶26

before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1159/2012 and

¶27

connected matters.

¶28

In the circumstances the following;

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

i. Writ petition is partly allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 22.01.2010 in KID No. 133/2007 passed by the labour Court at Gulbarga is hereby modified directing the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner workman into service with continuity of service and consequential benefits and without backwages on or before 14.09.2012.

¶31

iii. This order is subject to the final outcome in W.A. No. 1159/2012 and connected matters.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

LRS.

Amarappa S/O Hanmappa v. the Divisional Controller Nekrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarappa S/O Hanmappa v. the Divisional Controller Nekrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Nagayya S/O Veerayya Vs State of Karnataka

R.Thimmaiah Setty S/O.Late R.Vithoba Setty, Vs Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Manvi

Anusuyabai W/O Somashekhar Udachan Anr. Vs Pramod S/O Revansiddanna Manch

Shivaji S/O Ramachandra Kshatriya Vs the Divisional Controller, Nekrtc, Bijapur Dvn.

Sri. Shevu S/O Revu Chavan Vs the Divisional Controller Nekrtc

Abdul Rasheed S/O Md. Ismail Vs the Divisional Controller