The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-payment of equal basic salary to a co-worker, holding that questions of fact regarding pay entitlements are not appropriate for challenge under Article 226/227 and may be raised as industrial disputes.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.22355 OF 2021 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMACHANDRA .T S/O. MOHANAOPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS A DRIVER, BADGE NO.29500 KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR TALUK – 574 248.
PERMANENT ADDRESS: TALLUR HOUSE, NELLUR KEMRAJE POST, DEVACHALLA VILLAGE, SULLYA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNDA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI RAJARAM S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DAKSHINA KANNDA DISTRICT – 574 201 REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 03.09.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking to quash the endorsement issued by respondent No.3-Corporation dated 03/09/2019 in No.KA.RA.SA.PU.VI:C-SHA.MA.HA:38:2191:18-19 (Annexure
– “A”).
“A” has passed an order and perusal of endorsement indicates that on verification of the material which is available with the respondent - corporation, an endorsement is issued that there is no discrimination of the basic pay provided by the respondent –Corporation and there is absolutely no violation of the rules and regulations of the respondent – Corporation.
dismissed.
liberty to raise an industrial dispute, if so advised, in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
S*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the discrepancy in basic salary between two drivers constitutes a violation of rules warranting judicial intervention under Articles 226 and 227?
Sri Ramachandra .T
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Central Office
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Puttur Division
Administrative Officer
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
