Petitioner challenged the Labour Court order rejecting his reference regarding termination compensation. The Court upheld the Labour Court's view that petitioner was employed on a contract basis ending on 15.03.2013 and dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:37388 WP No. 14249 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.14249 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. RAGHAVENDRA C/O SRI. MARUTHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.208/4, 'E' 'D' MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 019.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARENDRA PATGAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.SRINIVAS KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MARUTHI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSHNA.H.SAMUEL FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
NC: 2023:KHC:37388 WP No. 14249 of 2020
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Narendra Patgar., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Srinivas Kumar., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
Sri.Maruthi., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Joshua H.Samuel., for respondent No.2 has appeared through video conferencing.
NC: 2023:KHC:37388 WP No. 14249 of 2020
Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
the petitioner is on contract basis for a period of twelve months with effect from the date of joining i.e., 09.09.2008 and the same was extended from time to time. Hence, the Labour Court concluded that there was no refusal of employment as alleged by the petitioner, since he had worked on a contract basis and his contract was came to an end on 15.03.2013. The Labour Court is justified in answering the point of dispute affirmatively and also justified in rejecting the reference. I find no grounds
to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN/MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the award of the Labour Court which rejected the reference regarding the petitioner's claim for termination compensation.
Whether the notice period provisions and delay in raising the dispute by the petitioner warrant dismissal of the reference.
Whether the appointment was on a permanent basis or on a contract basis up to 15.03.2013.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Raghavendra
The State of Karnataka
The Administrative Officer, St. Philomena Hospital
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
