Dismissed

T Ramakrishna, v. the Management of M/S Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2024WA/1343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench, dismissed a writ appeal filed by an employee against a Labour Court order. The court noted the appeal was filed 1181 days after the order challenging the dismissal of his writ petition for non-prosecution. Finding the appellant absent for over a year without explanation, the court held the appeal liable to be dismissed for delay and laches.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed for delay and laches; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

T Ramakrishna, Vs the Management of M/S Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:7142-DB WA No. 1343 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

¶10

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

T. RAMAKRISHNA S/O G. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21/2 KATHIRAIAHANAPALYA INDIRANGARA POST BANGALORE 560 038 …APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SHRI. G.K. BASAVARAJA PATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINGAR BANGALORE- 560 027 …RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SHRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.21390/2009 DATED 18.07.2018 AS ERRONEOUS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2023 IN WP NO.21390/2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON IA NO.1/2022 AND IA NO.2/2022 AND ETC.,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:7142-DB WA No. 1343 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING , THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This intra-court appeal filed after a lapse of 1181 days is directed against the order dated July 18, 2018 in W.P.No.21390/2009.

¶23

Heard Shri G.K.Basavaraja Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned standing counsel for KSRTC¹ both on delay and merits.

¶24

Appellant-petitioner has remained unauthorizedly absent

¶25

for more than one year. He has not chosen to explain the same before the Labour Court. Challenging the order passed by the Labour Court (Annexure-N in I.D.No.58/2000), petitioner has

¶26

filed the instant writ petition and it has been dismissed for non-prosecution. In order dated 18.07.2018, it is recorded that on the previous date of hearing also there was no representation. Subsequently, as application to recall the said order was filed. On 30.05.2023, the said application was dismissed. The instant appeal is filed after lapse of 1181 days.

¶27

1 Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:7142-DB WA No. 1343 of 2023

¶30

Shri Patel submitted that reckoned from the date of dismissal of I.As.No.1/2022 and 2/2022 dated 30.05.2023, there is not much delay in filing this appeal.

¶31

We may record that writ petition was dismissed on 18.07.2018. By recording a detailed order, the application for recalling filed in the year 2022 and the application for condonation of delay have also been dismissed.

¶32

Smt.Renuka, adverting to para 13 of the order passed by the Presiding Officer (Annexure-N), pointed out that workman had remained unauthorizedly absent for more than one year. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that workman did not come forward to explain the reason for his absence.

¶33

In reply, Shri Patel submitted that appellant was not permitted to work.

¶34

We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused records.

¶35

In view of the finding recorded by the Labour Court that no explanation was given and dismissal of writ petition for non-appearance and subsequent delay in filing application for recalling; and further delay of 1181 days in filing this appeal,

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:7142-DB WA No. 1343 of 2023

¶38

we are of the view that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for

¶39

delay and laches. Accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶40

In view of disposal of this appeal, pending interlocutory applications, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63

T Ramakrishna, v. the Management of M/S Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Ramakrishna, v. the Management of M/S Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Leelavathi Vs the Principal Secretary

Miller Traders Private Limited Vs Canara Bank

Union of India Vs Shri Manish Bajpai

Naveen Kumar. M. R. Vs Karnataka State Road

Sri. Harish Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri. Shaji U. v.