Partly allowed

The Nwkrtc v. Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Shalawadi

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2020WA/100215/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ appeal filed by the NWKRTC partly. The court modified the rate of back wages awarded to a resigning employee from 50% to 40% due to procedural delays. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The rate of back wages was reduced from 50% to 40%; notice to respondent dispensed with; initial condonation of delay allowed.

The Nwkrtc Vs Basavaraj S/O Veerappa… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.100215/2018 (S-RES)

¶9

Between:

¶10

The NWKRTC,

¶11

Rept. By Divisional Controller,

¶12

Gadag Division, Gadag, Now rep. by the Chief Law Officer, Central Office, Hubballi-580 020.

¶13

The Managing Director, NWKRTC, Central Office, Hubballi,

¶14

Now rep. by the Chief Law Officer, By its Chief Law Officer, Central Office, Hubballi-580 020.

¶15

The Chief Law Officer, NWKRTC, Central Office, Gokul Road, Hubballi-580 020.

¶16

… Appellants

¶17

(By Shri P.N.Hosamane, Advocate)

¶18

And:

¶19

Basavaraj S/o.Veerappa Shalawadi, Aged about 54 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.: 1/84, Sidhalinga Nagar, Gadag-582 101.

¶20

… Respondent

¶21

This Writ Appeal is filed u/S. 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, praying this Hon’ble Court to allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 15.03.2018 made in W.P.no.86102/2013 (S-Res) by allowing the writ petition in its entirety, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶22

- 2 -

¶23

This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, G.Narendar, J., delivered the following:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

¶26

This intra Court appeal is by the Corporation impugning the order of the learned Single Judge rendered in W.P.No.86102/2013.

¶27

The short point on which the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the writ petition is that the petitioner-respondent herein has communicated the withdrawal of his resignation on 09.01.2013 and the resignation acceptance letter is communicated on 10.01.2013 i.e., the letter that the resignation has been withdrawn is communicate before the communication of acceptance.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the acceptance was much before and there was delay in communication. So long as a proceeding remains on the file without communication, it remains merely a

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

proceedings without any consequence. Unless and until an order is communicated, it cannot be construed as an order. That apart, it is seen in the instant case that the reason for the respondent submitting his resignation is allegedly on account of the ill-treatment and frustration borne out at the hand of the superior. It is not the case of the appellant Corporation that the respondent workman is guilty of misconduct or misdemeanor. It can also be termed as an allegation of harassment at the hands of the superior. This Court has come across numerous instances of complaint of harassment by the superiors in the office of the appellant - Corporation. In that view of the matter, we do not find any ground which warrants interference with the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Be that as it may, it is seen that the writ petition has been preferred in December 2013 and there has been delay of more than 11 months in approaching this Court for the relief. There has been a delay in preferring the appeal also. The Managing Director,

¶32

NWKRTC has preferred an appeal in the month of September. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that award of back wages at the rate of 50% is on the higher side. Hence, the same is modified to 40%. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. In view of the marginal relief granted, we have dispensed with the notice to the respondent, in the event the respondent is aggrieved by this judgment, it is open for the respondent to seek for review or recall of the same.

¶33

In view of the disposal of the appeal, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2018 is allowed.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

Vnp*

The Nwkrtc v. Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Shalawadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Nwkrtc v. Basavaraj S/O Veerappa Shalawadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Rajendra S/O. Tanaji Patil, Vs Smt. Sheeba T Prakashan P.K

Chandrakant S/O Tammanna Majagi Vs Karnataka State Bar Council

The Divisional Manager Vs Devaraddi

Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Divisional Controller Vs Jamila Vasim W/O Late Sayed Zaheer