Dismissed

Sanjay S/O Maruthi Busagunde v. the Joint Registrar of Co.Operative Societies and Hqa to the Commissioner for Cane Development

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2024WP/102045/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus against a sugar company alleging illegal removal and seeking reinstatement. The Court held that the private lessee was not bound by previous orders of the Judicial Registrar in the absence of specific lease terms to cover the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking mandamus against respondent No.3 (private lessee) was dismissed as devoid of merits.

Sanjay S/O Maruthi Busagunde Vs the Joint… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.102045/2023(CS-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SANJAY S/O. MARUTHI BUSAGUNDE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: MEDICAL OFFICER, R/O: RAIBAG, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND HQA TO THE COMMISSIONER

¶14

FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIRECTOR OF SUGAR, KAVERI BHAVAN, BENGALURU.

¶15

RAIBAGSAHAKARISAKKAREKHARKAHANE, RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

SHRI RENUKA SUGARS LTD., AT BAVACHI PO: MEKHALI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 317.

¶17

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AT BELAGAVI, RAIBAGSAHAKARISAKKAREKHARKHANE, RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R4; SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2 IS SERVED)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING REF.NO.SRSL/RAIBAG/HR/NO-/01-02/2023-244, DATED 23/02/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-S, AS NULL AND VOID. TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER TO THE SERVICE BY VIRTUE OF ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DTD 01/04/2021 BEARING NO.DSK/DIS/27/ 2005-06 VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC.,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure-S.

¶27

Heard Sri Raghavendra A.Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 4 and Sri Sangram S.Kulkarni learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner being the medical practitioner was working as Medical Officer under respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 removed the petitioner from the service illegally. The petitioner approached respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as “the JRCS” for short) against such illegal removal. The JRCS considered the representation made by the petitioner and passed the order as per Annexure-F, setting aside the order of

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶30

removal of the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Even though the execution case was filed for reinstatement of the petitioner with respondent No.2, the same was remanded to JRCS as he was the authority for executing the order. The JRCS again directed respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits.

¶31

Learned counsel submits that, the petitioner had filed petition before this Court in W.P.No.104753/2021 seeking mandamus against respondent Nos.2 & 3. The writ petition was came to be allowed directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in light of the order passed by the JRCS. The petitioner was permitted to submit one more representation to the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider the same within two weeks. Accordingly the petitioner submitted the representation to the respondents. Respondent No.3 issued the endorsement as per Annexure-S rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement, which is called in

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶33

question before this Court. Hence, the petitioner prays for allowing the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3

¶35

opposing the petition submitted that, even according to the petitioner he was not an employee under respondent No.3. He was serving under respondent No.2 and he was removed from service by respondent No.2. He was ordered to be reinstated by the JRCS under respondent No.2. The petitioner is the lessee under respondent No.2 in respect of one unit and under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be reinstated with respondent No.3. Accordingly the endorsement as per Annexure-S was issued. But however, the petitioner is seeking the relief in the present petition only against respondent No.3 and not against respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Learned counsel also submitted that the petition

¶37

is filed against private entities. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable as respondent No.3 cannot be considered as the ‘State’ as defined under Article 12 of the

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶39

Constitution of India. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable.

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2-State supporting the contention taken by learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for dismissal of the writ petition as devoid of merits.

¶41

Perused the materials on record.

¶42

The undisputed facts of the case are that, the petitioner was an employee under respondent No.2, which is a Sugar Factory running under the name and style Raibagh Sahakari Sakkare Kharkhane, Raibag. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2Sugar Factory is being run even today. He submits that the Sugar Factory was leased in favour of respondent No.3. However, the lease deed in question is not produced before the Court.

¶43

When the representation was submitted by the petitioner to respondent No.2 & 3 seeking his reinstatement, the endorsement as per Annexure-S was

¶44

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6513 WP No. 102045 of 2023

¶45

came to be was issued by respondent No.3. Even as per Annexure-S, respondent No.2-Sugar Factory was taken under lease for rehabilitate, operate and transfer basis for a period of 30 years staring from 2007-08 to 2036-37. According to learned counsel for respondent No.3, as per the terms of the lease the workers who already on the roll as on the date of lease are agreed to be taken over. Since the petitioner was not on the roll of respondent No.2 as on the date of lease, he is not entitled for any relief. Admittedly, respondent No.3 was not a party before the JRCS. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that respondent No.3 is bound by the orders passed by the JRCS, in the absence of any such terms and conditions mentioned in the lease agreement. Therefore I do not find any merit in the petition seeking writ of mandamus against respondent No.3.

¶46

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

EM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sanjay S/O Maruthi Busagunde v. the Joint Registrar of Co.Operative Societies and Hqa to the Commissioner for Cane Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Maruthi Busagunde v. the Joint Registrar of Co.Operative Societies and Hqa to the Commissioner for Cane Development

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

Smuel S/O Immanuel Gowder Vs Prema W/O Shashikant Sankannavar

Smt. Radhika Nikam Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ranjitsinh Ghorpade S/O Vijaysinh Ghorpade Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shruti W/O. Shankar Masankatti Vs Smt Kamalavva W/O Yallappa Halekoti

Sri Gopal S/O Ramappa Hugar Vs the State of Karnataka

Andanagouda S/O Sangangouda Goudar Vs the Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer Land Acquisiton Officer