The Divisional Controller Vs Shri Nazarathullah Sherief

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 3271 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., TUMKURU DIVISION TUMKUR, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFICER, K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICES K.H.ROAD, SHANI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SHRI NAZARATHULLAH SHERIEF S/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED, AGED MAJOR, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION (AITUC), TUMKURU DIVISION, TUMKURU - 572 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. S.B.LAKSHMI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 09/06/2017 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ID NO.116/2011, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 09.06.2017 in ID No.116/2011 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, ' the Tribunal ]. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 09.06.2017, has allowed the respondent's application under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ' the ID Act '] directing the petitioner to extend the ' benefit of time scale of pay ' to the respondent for the period commencing from completion of 180 days from the initial appointment till the regularization in the year 2000.

¶23

Sri B.L. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the real cause for the present writ petition is that the petitioner, for reasons beyond control, could not place on record that the respondent has been given the ' benefit of time scale of

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶26

pay' for the period commencing from completion of 180 days from the initial appointment, and it is because of this failure, the Labour Court has passed the impugned order dated 09.06.2017 in ID No.116/2011. The learned counsel submits that the appropriate evidence in this regard is let in the proceedings commenced by the respondent under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act to recover the alleged amount in terms of the Tribunal's order.

¶27

Sri B. L. Sanjeev further submits that when the proceedings under Section 33 – C (2) of the ID Act are midway, the Tribunal has caused the Communication dated 17.12.2024 to the petitioner's Divisional Controller calling for a report in compliance with the impugned order dated 09.06.2017. Significantly, the learned counsel submits that the petition could be disposed of notwithstanding the cause that is pleaded, with liberty to the petitioner to cross examine the

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶30

respondent on the petitioner's essential defense that all amounts payable in terms of the order dated 09.06.2017, have been paid and therefore, the proceedings under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act will not survive.

¶31

Smt. S.B. Laxmi, the learned counsel for the respondent, denies the petitioner's case that the amount, as is required under the impugned order dated 09.06.2017, is paid, and in fact, the learned counsel submits that there is elaborate evidence in this regard in the pending proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act. The learned counsel also states that the Labour Court in these proceedings has rejected the petitioner's application for reopening of the case and recall of the respondent for further cross examination and the petitioner, without calling in question the order rejecting the applications, has called in question the Tribunal's order dated 09.06.2017.

¶32

5 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶34

In rejoinder, Sri B.L. Sanjeev submits

¶35

that he will not dispute that the Tribunal has rejected the applications for recalling and reopening on 15.01.2025, but the request is being made for ensuring expedited decision by the Tribunal on the application under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act upon consideration of all circumstances that would be material, including the petitioner's specific case that the details of the payments made will justify that the respondent has been paid entirely the benefit of the ' time scale of pay' on completion of 180 days from the date of initial payment.

¶36

The question of interference in the

¶37

present writ petition is considered in the light of these circumstances and submissions. This Court must observe that the question for consideration with the Tribunal in the pending proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of ID the Act indisputably will be whether the petitioner can succeed in its defense that

¶38

6 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶40

the respondent had been admitted to the benefit of ' time scale of pay ' on completion of 180 days from initial appointment. This aspect, which was not brought out in the proceedings in ID No.116/2011, is crucial to the petitioner’s case. It is possible, as is canvassed by Smt. S.B. Laxmi, that there is sum and substance evidence in this regard in the proceedings.

¶41

However, the overwhelming consideration

¶42

must be an expedited decision by the Tribunal on the question as aforesaid with all the material being brought on record without protraction. When the question of interference is considered in the afore circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petition must be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, notwithstanding the order dated 25.01.2025, to seek recall of the respondent for further cross examination, but in the light of the Memo of Calculation that is filed or could be filed

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:9300 WP No. 3271 of 2025

¶45

without fail by the next date of hearing. As such, the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

[A] The petition is disposed of directing the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to recall the respondent for further cross examination in the light of the Memo of Calculation that is filed [or that may be filed] on the next date of hearing. The petitioner will also be at liberty to lead further evidence.

¶48

[B] The Tribunal, given the nature of the dispute and the length of time this dispute has persisted, is called upon to make all efforts to see that the proceedings under Section 33-C (2) of the ID Act are closed on or before 28.04.2025.

¶49

SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶50

SA ct:sr

The Divisional Controller v. Shri Nazarathullah Sherief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Shri Nazarathullah Sherief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Smt. Rathnamma Vs United Spirits

Smt Lalitha T Vs the Chief Commissioner Bbmp

Smt. Aruna. N Vs Sri. T. M. Naveen Dead by Lrs

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs D. Yogaraju

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs Ganapathi Gajanana Bhat