Single Judge dismissed Writ Petitions seeking regularization rights. Writ Appeal filed challenging that order. Appellants claimed entitlement to retrospective absorption under Clause 5 of a 1978 Memorandum of Settlement. Court held appellants fall under Clause 6 not Clause 5 and rejected parity claim.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
RESIDING AT NO.26, 2ND CROSS H.M.NAYAKA ROAD JAI MARUTHI NAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 096.
RESIDING AT NO.252/14, 2ND CROSS CHENNAPPA LAYOUT NELAMANGALA-562 123 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI:MURALIDHAR K.B., ADVOCATE (VC))
AND:
3
4
5
METER READER, CESC-DIVISION-3 GUTHAKAL SUB-DIVISION MANDYA DIVISION MANDYA-571 401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI:SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI:JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R8 (VC); R9 SERVED, R10 TO R12, R13(A-C) AND R14 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DTD 24.3.2020 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 27.11.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NOS.44487-44495 OF 2014 (S-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO EXTEND THE BENEFIT OF CLAUSE (5) OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 15.05.1978 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT THEM BENEFIT OF ABSORPTION ON COMPLETION OF 240 DAYS OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE IN A 12 CALENDAR MONTH ON THE SUCCEDING 1ST OF JULY 1978/79, WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING REFIXATION OF PAY AND ARREARS OF SALARY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF’S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND JUST IN THE MATTER.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, M.G.UMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The appellants are assailing order dated 27/11/2019 passed in Writ Petition Nos.44487-44495 of 2014 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners as being devoid of merit.
6
appellants-petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were appointed on various dates in Karnataka Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the KEB” for the sake of brevity) on daily wages between 1977-78. It is the contention of the appellants that a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into between the Management and Workmen of the then KEB on 15/05/1978 regarding absorption of the Temporary Time Roll (TTR) men working under the first respondent organization. The said Memorandum of Settlement was approved by respondent No.1. It is contended by the appellants that they are entitled for regularization with effect from 01/07/1980, while the Management contended that they are entitled for absorption only with effect from 01/07/1982. An Industrial Dispute was raised under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the services of workmen had to be regularized with effect from 01/07/1980 with consequential benefits. The KEB had
7
challenged the said award of the Tribunal by filing Writ Petition No.27711 of 1997 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 05/11/1997. Aggrieved by the said order, writ appeal was preferred by the KEB in Writ Appeal No.159 of 1998, which also came to be dismissed as without any merit.
workman by name Sri.Kariyaiah was also absorbed along with the petitioners and was granted the benefit of retrospective absorption on completion of 240 days of continuous service. Subsequently, respondent No.1 withdrew the benefit of retrospective absorption granted to Sri.Kariyaiah. Thereafter, the said order withdrawing the absorption retrospectively was challenged by the said workman by filing Writ Petition No.11447 of 2010 and the same was allowed. Therefore, the appellants herein submitted representation to the respondents stating that they are also similarly placed and are entitled for retrospective absorption and for re-fixation of their pay.
8
The claim of the appellants came to be rejected by the respondents on 24/03/2014.
9
dated 15/09/1978 to them and thereby to confer retrospective absorption into service with re-fixation or their pay. The same was resisted by the respondents on the ground that the appellants did not fall under Clause-5 as their case falls under Clause-6 of the Memorandum of Settlement. On consideration of the claim made by the appellants in light of the date of their appointment and years of service put in during the specific period, we find that Clause-5 of the Memorandum of Settlement which is extracted in the impugned order is not attracted to the case of the appellants. The appointment and designation of the appellants do not fall under Clause-5 of the Memorandum of Settlement but it falls under Clause-6 of the Memorandum of Settlement.
appellants that benefits were granted to one Sri.J.Kariyaiah under Clause-5 of the Memorandum of Settlement, but subsequently, the same was withdrawn. Challenging the said order of withdrawal, the said workman had filed Writ
10
Petition No.11447 of 2010 before this Court and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 07/09/2011. Further, it is also contended that one Ujjani Gowda (S.A.Grade-I) was granted similar benefit and therefore, the appellants are seeking grant of benefit on parity. But, however, Writ Petition No.11447 of 2010 came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 07/09/2011 on the ground that the workman was not heard in the matter before the said withdrawal of the benefit and the matter was remanded. After remand, fresh decision was taken and the benefit was withdrawn by assigning reasons. To claim parity, the appellants have to demonstrate that they are similarly placed and the benefit were granted to other persons in accordance with the Memorandum of Settlement. But nothing has been placed before this Court to substantiate such a contention. Therefore, the submission on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled for parity in the matter of retrospective absorption and re-fixation of their pay, cannot be accepted.
11
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find
any merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
*bgn/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether appellants entitled to retrospective absorption under Clause 5 of Memorandum of Settlement or governed by Clause 6.
Whether appellants entitled to benefit of parity based on benefits granted to other workmen.
H.T.GANGANNA AND OTHERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR KPTCL AND OTHERS
M.G.UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
