Yogesh M D v. the State of Karnataka
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, holding that the termination of workmen and their transfer violated the lease agreement and principles of natural justice. The court set aside the termination order while reserving liberty for other relief claims regarding dues and status.
What did the court decide?
The impugned termination order is set aside; Respondent No.4 directed to continue petitioners-workmen as per the lease agreement.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.9547/2021 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
- YOGESH M.D. EMP. CODE NO:61119 COMPUTER OPERATOR HR DEPARTMENT S/O. DEVEGOWDA M.S. AGED 42 YEARS MAKAVALLI, K.R. PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 426.
- PRAMILA K.C. EMP. CODE NO:60107 CLERK PURCHASE PURCHASE DEPARTMENT D/O. CHAMARAJU AGED 41 YEARS, KADATHANALU PANDAVAPURA R.S. SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 435.
- BHANUPRIYA .S EMP. CODE NO:60112 DIPLOMA CIVIL TRAINEE CIVIL DEPARTMENT D/O. SIDDE GOWDA AGED 30 YEARS KAPARANAKOPPALU (DARASAKUPPE) SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 435.
- ANAND .V EMP. CODE:60127
- 2 -
ASSISTANT ACCOUNT OFFICER ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT S/O. VENKATESH AGED 36 YEARS NO.119/3, ANEKARE BEEDI, MANDYA – 571 401.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the terminating of petitioners-workmen services by respondent No.2 and transfer by respondent No.4 violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India?
Whether the availability of alternative remedy is a bar for the Court to entertain the petition under Article 226 when there is a violation of Article 21?
Whether the lease agreement provision mandates continuation of services and if termination without approval violates the lease terms?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
YOGESH M.D. EMP. CODE NO: 61119
- petitioner
PRAMILA K.C. EMP. CODE NO: 60107
- petitioner
BHANUPRIYA .S EMP. CODE NO: 60112
- respondent
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
- respondent
PANDAVAPURA SAHAKARA SAKKARE KHARKHANE LIMITED
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/9547/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court