Dismissed¶63

Sri. Mohan v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2025WA/849/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal dismissed; contractual Ledger Clerk, BESCOM, Bangarpet Sub-Division/Bethamangala; reinstatement and regularization denied; Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act 1947 contention raised by appellant; 240 days of service; parity with regularized co-recruits; common Labour Court award (I.D.No.382/2006); co-workmen compensated Rs.75,000 each (W.P. 16311-16312/2008; common judgment 20.08.2013 in W.A. 319-320/2010, 153/2010, 3009/2010; SLP(C) 3152-3153/2014 dismissed 14.02.2014); finality of earlier judgment bars different outcome; Single Judge's compensation direction upheld; L-TER; Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB; coram Anu Sivaraman and Vijaykumar A. Patil, JJ.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; all pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed. ¶63

Sri. Mohan Vs the Managing Director — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; all pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed.

¶63

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in not directing reinstatement of the appellant, who claimed continuous service since 1999 having worked more than 240 days in each calendar year, it being contended that termination without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was unsustainable. +2 more

¶38

Ratio / Principle

There is no sustainable ground raised in this appeal for an interference with the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶61

Key takeaways

In view of the fact that a common award had already been considered by the learned Single Judge and the order in appeal having attained finality, there is no scope for a different judgment being rendered in the appellant's case.ratio¶62
No error was found in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge; the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

A Ledger Clerk taken on contract by BESCOM (Bangarpet Sub-Division, Bethamangala Section) through an interview dated 28.05.1999 on consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.1,553/- had his claim for reinstatement rejected by a common award of the Labour Court covering three workmen (the dispute being referred to as I.D.No.382/2006), which held the workmen to be temporary, contract engagements not liable to be regularized nor entitled to reinstatement. The two co-workmen had, however, been granted cash compensation of Rs.75,000/- each by order dated 13.11.2009 in W.P.Nos.16311-16312/2008, affirmed by a Division Bench common judgment dated 20.08.2013 in W.A.Nos.319-320/2010 and 153/2010 and 3009/2010, with SLP(C)Nos.3152-3153/2014 dismissed on 14.02.2014, so that judgment had attained finality. Following that line of decisions, the learned Single Judge by order dated 09.02.2023 in W.P.No.63784/2016 (L-TER) modified the award and directed payment of Rs.75,000/- to the appellant. Holding there was no sustainable ground for interference and, finality having intervened, no scope for a different judgment, the Division Bench found no error in the Single Judge's exercise of jurisdiction and dismissed the writ appeal, with all pending interlocutory applications.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2023 (L-TER)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. MOHAN S/O MADURAI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.2-190 2^ND BLOCK NEW EXTENSION NEAR DATTA SCHOOL BETHAMANGALA (P) KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.63784/2016 (L-TER).

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶25

We have heard Smt. Avani Chokshi, learned counsel

¶26

appearing for the appellant and Shri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶27

A Ledger Clerk appointed in the respondent -

¶28

BESCOM, on a contract basis, is before this Court in this appeal, challenging the dismissal of his Writ Petition No.63784/2016 (L-TER) by judgment of the learned Single

¶29

Judge dated 09.02.2023. He was appointed pursuant to an interview conducted on 28.05.1999 as 'Ledger Clerk' to

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

assist the M.E.Men at Bangarpet Sub-Division,

¶33

Bethamangala Section, admittedly on a contract basis with consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.1,553/-. On 21.12.2024, he was issued with a certificate that he was entrusted with ledger works in the Bethamangala accounts section on temporary contract with mandatory breaks in service from 11.01.1999 to 28.02.2004. However, it is contended that his services were dispensed with on 28.02.2024. He approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement. By Annexure 'A' - Award, produced along with the Writ Petition, his case was considered along with two other similar matters and a common award was

¶34

passed dismissing the disputes. The petitioner challenged the award before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, modifying the award to the extent of directing the respondent - employer to make payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

¶38

submits that the learned Single Judge erred in not directing the reinstatement of the appellant. It is submitted that since the appellant was in continuous service since 1999 and having worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar years, the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the rejection of the I.D.No.382/2006, was erroneous. It is contended that the termination of service of the appellant without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was completely unsustainable. It is further contended that several persons who were appointed along with the petitioner had been regularized in service and that the appellant who had been recruited after an interview was entitled to continue in service as in the case of a regular employee.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

respondent would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner was only a contractual employee and had been

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

specifically appointed and his service regulated in terms of

¶44

the contract alone. It is submitted that the other two persons who had suffered the common award along with the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions No.16311-16312/2008. The Writ Petitions were disposed of by Order dated 13.11.2009, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement or regularization but that they are entitled to the cash compensation of Rs.75,000/- each for the services rendered by them to the respondent. The said judgment was taken in an appeal by the workmen, filing Writ Appeals No.319-320/2010 and by the Management, filing Writ Appeals No.153/2010 and 3009/2010. A common judgment was rendered on 20.08.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court. All the appeals were dismissed and the award of compensation at Rs.75,000/- to the workmen

¶45

by the learned Single Judge was found to be just and proper. It is contended that it was following the said

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

judgment that the learned Single Judge had directed the payment of the compensation to the appellant as well.

¶49

We have considered the contentions advanced.

¶50

We notice that it is the specific case of the appellant that he was appointed on contract basis on consolidated monthly remuneration initially for a period of one month from 01.06.1999 to 30.06.1999. Thereafter, his services were continued. On 28.02.2004, he was orally informed by the respondent that his services stood terminated. After considering the materials on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen were engaged only temporarily and on contract and that their services were not liable to be regularized and that they were not entitled to reinstatement as well.

¶51

The disputes with regard to three workmen

¶52

were dealt with by the common order. In the case of other two workmen, they had approached this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the

¶53

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

order of the Labour Court and had directed the payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to each of the two workers. The matter was taken in an appeal both by the workmen and the respondents and a common judgment was rendered upholding the rejection of the I.D. and upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We notice from the Case Information System that the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3152-3153/2014 filed against the said judgment have also been dismissed on 14.02.2014. The judgment of the Division Bench had therefore attained finality. It was thereafter that the present writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the very same

¶56

award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment rendered in the case of other two workmen who were parties to the very same judgment and directed payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. It is against this judgment that the appeal is filed.

¶57

Having considered the contentions advanced

¶58

and in view of the facts as stated, we are of the opinion

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

that there is no sustainable ground raised in this appeal

¶62

for an interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that a common award had already been considered by the learned Single Judge and the order in appeal having attained finality, there is no scope for a different judgment being rendered in the appellant's case.

¶63

We find no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶64

All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.

¶65

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶66

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶67

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

¶68

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.63784/2016 (L-TER), disposing of the appellant's writ petition challenging the Labour Court award and directing payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation.¶20
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 09.02.2023
Prior proceeding
Appellant appointed as 'Ledger Clerk' pursuant to an interview conducted on 28.05.1999, to assist the M.E.Men at Bangarpet Sub-Division, Bethamangala Section.¶29
Prior proceeding
Engagement admittedly on contract basis with consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.1,553/-.¶33
Prior proceeding
Certificate dated 21.12.2024 issued recording entrustment of ledger works in the Bethamangala accounts section on temporary contract with mandatory breaks in service from 11.01.1999 to 28.02.2004.¶33
Prior proceeding
As contended by the appellant, his services were dispensed with on 28.02.2024.¶33
Prior proceeding
Elsewhere recorded: on 28.02.2004 the appellant was orally informed by the respondent that his services stood terminated (date discrepancy in source retained as printed).¶50
Prior proceeding
Appellant approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement; by Annexure 'A' - Award his case was considered along with two other similar matters and a common award was passed dismissing the disputes.¶33
Prior proceeding
The underlying dispute figure is referred to in the appeal as I.D.No.382/2006, whose rejection was contended to be erroneous.¶38
Prior proceeding
Labour Court concluded that the workmen were engaged only temporarily and on contract, that their services were not liable to be regularized, and that they were not entitled to reinstatement.¶50
Prior proceeding
Two co-workmen under the same award filed Writ Petitions No.16311-16312/2008; disposed of by order dated 13.11.2009 holding them not entitled to reinstatement or regularization but entitled to cash compensation of Rs.75,000/- each.¶44
Prior proceeding
Workmen filed Writ Appeals No.319-320/2010 and the Management filed Writ Appeals No.153/2010 and 3009/2010; a common judgment dated 20.08.2013 of a Division Bench dismissed all the appeals and found the award of compensation at Rs.75,000/- just and proper.¶44
Prior proceeding
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3152-3153/2014 filed against the said judgment were dismissed on 14.02.2014; the Division Bench judgment thereby attained finality.¶55
Prior proceeding
Appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No.63784/2016 (L-TER) seeking to set aside the very same award of the Labour Court; the learned Single Judge followed the judgment rendered in the case of the other two workmen and directed payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation.¶56

Sri. Mohan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohan v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sri.Vinay Kumar M.K Vs Sri.Uma Shankar IAS

National Highways Authority of India Vs Smt Ashwathamma

Sri. Mahadevaswamy Vs Sri Ramesh

Anne Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Chethan K J Vs Smt Sowbhagya B E

The Deputy General Manager (Hr/Admn) Vs Smt Chandramathi