In this writ appeal, the appellant challenged the single judge order dismissing a petition to set aside an Industrial Tribunal award terminating his services. The appellants claimed victimization and disproportionate punishment. The single judge had found no merit in the petition and no ground to interfere.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH 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.3684/2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
H.S. RAGHUPATHY S/O. H.S. SUBBA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.1274/1, 2ND CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURA, MYSURU – 570 004.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI N.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. VIKRANT TYRES LTD., K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI, MYSURU – 570 016.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S.N. MURTHY ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES (THROUGH V/C))
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2018 IN W.P.NO.24106/2009 [L-RES] PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY TO ALLOW WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY THE APPELLANT AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEFS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T
The legality and correctness of the order of the learned single Judge dated 18/07/2018, passed in W.P.No.24106/2009 is questioned by the writ petitioner in this appeal.
aggrieved, the appellant preferred W.P.No.24106/2009 before this Court. The learned single Judge, on considering the case of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 18/07/2018, holding that there was no merit in the petition and no ground to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Hence, this appeal.
submission: firstly, he submitted that the award of punishment is disproportionate to the charges and alleged misconduct against the appellant. He submitted that the allegations of misconduct against the appellant did not warrant termination of his services, even if for a moment it is assumed that the same were proved. Consequently, he submitted that this is a case of victimization and unfair labour practice. Also, the enquiry had not been conducted in accordance with law. Appellant’s counsel next submitted that the impugned order of termination may be set aside and the appellant may be reinstated and since he
has attained the age of superannuation now, backwages may be paid to him by way of a monetary compensation.
6. We do not find any merit in the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
S*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal filing under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act to set aside the single judge order dismissing the writ petition in a termination case is maintainable.
Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting the reference and the single judge's order upholding it suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
H.S. Raghupathy
Management of M/s. Vikrant Tyres Ltd.
B.V. Nagarathna
M.G. Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
