The Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom) Vs a L Ramakrishna

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 8282 OF 2020 (L-RES) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 13219 OF 2021 (L-RES)

¶8

IN WP No. 8282/2020

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560009.

¶11

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (C AND OM), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563117.

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C AND OM), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), CO AND M DIVISION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563117.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

A.L.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANNENAHALLI,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

GUMMAREDDYPURA POST, KOLAR-563117.

¶22

S.N.RAMESH., S/O. NANJUNDESHWARA, AGED MAJOR, RESIDENT OF SUGATUR POST, KOLAR-563117.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. K.SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶26

IN WP NO. 13219/2021

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. A.L.RAMAKRISHNA, S/O. LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDENT OF ANNENAHALLI, GUMMAREDDYPURA POST, KOLAR-563117.

¶29

SRI. S.N.RAMESH., S/O. NANJUNDESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SUGATUR POST, KOLAR-563117.

¶30

...PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA K., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (C AND CO), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563117.

¶37

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (C AND CO), BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), CO AND M DIVISION, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563117.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶41

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2025, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

IN W.P.No.8282/2020

¶44

Sri.Rahul Krishna Reddy.P., counsel on behalf of Sri.Prasanna Kumar.P., for the petitioners and Sri.K.Srinivasa, counsel for the respondents, have appeared in person.

¶45

IN W.P.No.13219/2021

¶46

Sri.K.Srinivasa., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rahul Krishna Reddy.P., counsel on behalf of Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, for respondents 1 to 3, have appeared in person.

¶47

4 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

For convenience's sake, the parties are referred to

¶51

as per their rankings before the Labour Court.

¶52

The short facts are these:

¶53

The first party raised an industrial dispute before the competent authority. The Government of Karnataka, being the appropriate authority, referred the dispute to the Labour Court. In the claim statement, the first party contended that they were engaged/ appointed by the second party as Gangmen on 01.04.2003 in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.) BESCOM, Meter Inspection Division, Kolar, temporarily, and their services were continued without interruption till 17.10.2007. They were orally refused employment on 18.10.2007.

¶54

It is stated that they were initially paid a consolidated salary of Rs.1,500/- per month and received increments from time to time, and as on the date of termination, they were earning a consolidated salary of Rs.4,400/- per month. They also contended that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and they fall within Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; however, they have been illegally refused

¶55

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

employment and hence, there is a violation of 25F and 2(oo) of the Act. It is the case of the first party that after the illegal termination, they gave numerous representations to the Company stating that other temporary Gangmen who were working on a consolidated salary were absorbed as Mazdoors, but the same has not been extended to them. They requested reinstatement and regularization; however, there was no response from the Company.

¶58

Upon receipt of notice of the proceedings, the second party appeared and filed a counter statement. They specifically contended that there is a delay in raising the dispute. The first party were hired on a temporary / contract basis, and the removal was on account of non-renewal of a contract. Among other grounds, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The parties led oral evidence, and the first party exhibited the documents, which were marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W11. The Labour Court vide award dated 17.01.2019 partly allowed the claim statement, and second party management was directed

¶59

to reinstate the first party back into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits for the purpose of

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

terminal benefits and denied the backwages. Under these circumstances, the parties are before this Court.

¶63

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶64

Counsel Sri.Rahul Krishna Reddy.P., placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶65

(1) KARNATAKA HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT

¶66

CORPORATION LIMITED VS. SRI.MAHADEVA

¶67

LAXMAN RAVAL - (2006) 13 SCC 15.

¶68

(2) SECRETARY, STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMADEVI (3) AND OTHERS - (2006) 4 SCC 1.

¶69

(3) M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. HARIRAM -

¶70

(2004) 8 SCC 246.

¶71

(4) LENIN KUMAR RAY VS. EXPRESS

¶72

PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LIMITED. [WITH] MANAGEMENT, M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD., VS. LENIN KUMAR RAY - 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 2987.

¶73

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

(5) PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR,

¶76

SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER - (2015) 15 SCC 1.

¶77

(6) UDAI SINGH S/O.SHRI BABU LAL VS. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION DHOLPUR AND OTHERS - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17821/2019 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan).

¶78

Counsel Sri.K.Srinivasa placed reliance on the following decisions.

¶79

(1) SANJEEVKUMAR AND OTHERS VS. GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS - W.P.NOS.101460-101467/2013.

¶80

(2) GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY AND OTHERS VS. SANJEEVKUMAR AND OTHERS - W.A.NOS.200007-200010/2016 (L-RES) AND W.A.NOS.200140-200143/2016.

¶81

(3) THE MANAGEMENT OF BANGALORE ELECTRICITY CO. LTD., VS. SRI.D.MANJUNATH

¶82

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

AND OTHERS - W.A.NOS.15853/2011 AND

¶85

W.A.NOS.596-599/2012.

¶86

(4) JASMER SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER - (2015) 4 SCC 458.

¶87

(5) MANJUNATH RAJU.N AND OTHERS VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM AND OTHERS - W.P.NO.9680/2020.

¶88

(6) FAROOQ PASHA VS. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BESCOM AND OTHERS -

¶89

W.P.NO.10863/2020.

¶90

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶91

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶92

Whether the Labor Court is justified in concluding that there is no delay and the dispute is not stale?

¶93

Whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference?

¶94

The facts are sufficiently said, and they do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and

¶95

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

relates to delay and laches, and reinstatement. Alleging oral refusal of employment on 18.10.2007, a dispute was raised by the first party in 2016.

¶98

Counsel Sri.Rahul Krishna Reddy.P., for the management in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in raising the dispute. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRABHAKAR VS. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, to contend that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law regarding delay and laches.

¶99

By way of reply, counsel Sri.K.Srinivasa, submits that there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under the I.D Act. The Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the I.D Act to make a reference. He argued by saying that an affidavit was filed by S.N.Ramesh, the second petitioner in W.P.No.13219/2021, explaining the delay.

¶100

A good deal of argument is canvassed on delay and laches. Heard with care. One of the issues relates to delay and

¶101

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶102

HC-KAR

¶103

laches. As per the claim statement, the first party were refused employment from 18.10.2007. Strangely, they raised a dispute in 2016. There is an inordinate delay of almost nine years. The contention of the first party that they were making representations and communicating with the management must necessarily fail. The reason is simple. There is nothing on record to show that they were making representations and communicating with the management.

¶104

The Apex Court in PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER

¶105

reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman for a long time and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remain unexplained, it should be presumed that he had waived his right. It is also observed that at the time when the dispute was raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the first party, it had virtually become a stale dispute. In my view, the dispute ought to have been dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

¶106

11 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

Next, let me consider the merits of the case. The first party specifically contended that they were directly appointed by the BESCOM authority. In this Court also, they adhered to the said contention. The contention must necessarily fail; the reason is simple. It is pivotal to note that the first party were not appointed directly by the BESCOM authority, and they were appointed temporarily /Contract basis. The contract came to an end in 2007, and there was no renewal of the contract. There is nothing on record to show that they were appointed permanently by the BESCOM Authority to the vacant posts. The Labor Court has erred in placing the burden on the management to prove that the first party were not direct employees and that they were appointed by the agency. I may venture to say that the Labor Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶110

Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions.

¶111

12 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:45197 WP No. 8282 of 2020 C/W WP No. 13219 of 2021

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

Since this Court has rejected the dispute on the delay and laches and merits of the case, the Writ Petition filed by the management (BESCOM) is to be allowed and the Writ Petition filed by the first party is liable to be dismissed.

¶115

A Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Prl. Labour Court, Bangalore in Reference No.29/2016 is quashed.

¶116

Resultantly, W.P.No.8282/2020 filed by the Management is allowed and W.P.No.13219/2021 filed by the first party is dismissed .

¶117

Because of disposal of the Writ Petitions, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶118

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶119

TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

The Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom) v. a L Ramakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom) v. a L Ramakrishna

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

Similar cases

Smt N S Nirmala Vs the Official Liquidator of

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa India Limited

M/S Salar Jung Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Sunil R Morakka

The Management of M/S Vinayaka C N C Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Workmen of Vinayaka C N C Centre Pvt. Ltd.

Siddalingaiah.S Vs R. Shivagangappa Dead by Lrs Shivamma

The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Vs Sri. K Ganganna