Disposed

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc v. Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2022WP/104319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an industrial tribunal order dismissing a workman was disposed of without consideration as the workman died during pendency. Court held regulations prevent further discipline enquiry against deceased, rendering petition dead. There is nothing else to do here.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as it does not survive due to death of workman during pendency.

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc Vs Ramappa S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 104319 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 104319 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBBALLI.

¶10

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RAMAPPA S/O BASAVANNEPPA KARRORA AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS, OCC: EX-CONDUCTOR, R/O: SOMANAHALLI, POST: THAVARAGI, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:05.09.2017 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.182/2011 THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SERIAL APPLICATION NO.182/2011 AS PRAYED FOR AND COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION ON THE FILE OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP No. 104319 of 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in serial Application No.182/2011 and consequently to allow the serial Application No.182/2011 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner Corporation had filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Challenging the action taken by the Management on 10.12.2011, whereby a decision was taken to dismiss the workman from service.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal exceeded in its power to go into the merits of the case in holding that the charge against the workman was not duly proved. Hence, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires to be quashed.

¶21

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Subsequent to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the workman had filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for recovery of the dues from the Corporation from 2011 till 2017 and the labour Court, in

¶23

¶24

WP No. 104319 of 2018

¶25

Application No.9/2018 allowed the application and directed the management to pay the arrears of salary and other terminal benefits in favour of the workman. The order passed by the labour Court in Application No.9/2018 has been implemented by paying dues to the workman. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the workman died during the pendency of the writ petition. The regulations of the respondent corporation specifies that the corporation ceases to have right to initiate discipline enquiry against the deceased workman.

¶26

In view of the same, the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

Rsh

¶29

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc v. Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller Nwkrtc v. Ramappa S/O Basavanneppa Karrora

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

M/S Pola Bala Prabha Vs the Excise Commissioner in Karnataka

Ayub S/O Abdulmajeed Maniyar Vs State of Karnataka

Prf. Narayan S/O Krishna Marathe Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Basappa Billal Vs the State of Karnataka

Devendrappa S/O Hanumantappa Vaddarahatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Malatibai W/O Vasant Kulkarni, Vs Umesh Falsely Calling Himself as Adopted