Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.D.S.Revana Siddappa

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2024WA/24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge order reinstating a workman with continuity of service benefits. The court held that since the appellant reinstated the respondent, the workman is entitled to continuity from the date of dismissal, and dismissed the appeal against the order withholding increments as punishment.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; IA No. 1/2022 declared infructuous.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.D.S.Revana Siddappa — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. HEREIN REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI D.S.REVANA SIDDAPPA, Digitally signed by NANDINI R S/O SIDDAPPA, Location: High AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, Court of Karnataka R/AT K BENAVANAHALLI, BANNIKUNDA POST, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 516.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.55775/2017 (L-KSRTC) DATED 23.11.2021.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 23.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.55775/2017, whereby, the learned Single Judge has set aside the award dated 23.08.2017 passed in I.D.No.33/2015 by the Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru and thereby, directing as under:

¶22

"i. Petition is hereby allowed.

¶23

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.08.2017 and 13.10.2017 passed in ID No.33/2015 by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-B and C and the order of dismissal dated 28.05.2015 passed by the respondent - Second party, are hereby set aside and modified/ substituted in the following terms:

¶24

a. Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner/workman into service subject to the condition that the petitioner would not be entitled to backwages from the date of dismissal dated 28.05.2015 till date of reinstatement.

¶25

b. In is further directed that the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits pursuant to reinstatement.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶28

c. It is further directed that as a measure of punishment, the petitioner would not be entitled to three annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of dismissal till date of reinstatement.

¶29

d. Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner/workman into service within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

¶30

At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

appellant-Corporation has placed before us a

¶32

communication dated 24.01.2023 from the Chief Law Officer to the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Bengaluru Central Division, Bengaluru, a copy thereof was addressed to the counsel, wherein the following has been stated:

¶33

"With reference to the above subject, this is to inform that the above matter is entrusted to our Advocate to file writ petition against the order of Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 55775/2017.

¶34

In the mean time, the Competent Authority/Director (P:V) has accorded approval to reinstate the workman into service subject to result of writ appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of Learned Single Judge, passed in WP No. 55775/2017 dated 23.11.2021.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶37

Since the Corporation has taken decision to challenge the entire order of learned Single Judge. It is requested to reinstate the workman as stated above on payment of last drawn wages.

¶38

Therefore, it is requested to take necessary action and send compliance."

¶39

A perusal of the same would reveal that the appellant has reinstated the respondent-Workman into service. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the appellant, whether the same had been passed because of any execution petition filed by the respondent-workman, the answer is in the negative. If that be so the appellant itself has reinstated the respondent in-service. It follows the impugned order has been implemented in-part, though subject to the outcome of the appeal.

¶40

The issue that arises for consideration as

¶41

contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is whether the learned Single Judge is justified while setting aside the award to direct the respondent shall be entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits

¶42

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶43

pursuant to reinstatement. The Counsel submit the same shall relate back to the date of dismissal i.e., 28.05.2015 till the date of reinstatement, which shall entail huge financial implication. We are not in agreement with this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant on the order of the learned Single Judge. It goes without saying that if the appellant has reinstated the respondent, the necessary consequence is the respondent shall be entitled to continuity of service, for all purposes. His service reinstatement shall relate back to the date of dismissal i.e., 28.05.2015. In the facts of this case, more particularly, when the appellant has been reinstated the respondent, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶44

Learned counsel for the appellant has also urged regarding para ii(c) of the operative portion of the Judgment which we have re-produced above to say the same is an untenable direction. A perusal of the same reveals that the learned Single Judge has as a measure of

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:22917-DB WA No. 24 of 2022

¶46

punishment directed that the petitioner i.e., respondent herein would not be entitled to three annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The consequence thereof is that the same shall act as a punishment for the misdemeanor committed by the respondent.

¶47

The appeal being without any merit is

¶48

dismissed.

¶49

IA No. 1/2022 has become infructuous.

Sd/JUDGE

Sd/JUDGE

NR/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.D.S.Revana Siddappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.D.S.Revana Siddappa

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

Rishi Kariyappa Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri Janardhana Vs State of Karnataka

Biligiri Education Society (R) Vs D Krishna Murthy

The Divisional Controller Vs C J Rajkumar

Mr.Lohith M Vs the State of Karnataka

Spoorthi School of Dance Vs v Ramalinga Reddy