The Principal Vs Manjunath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Principal Vs Manjunath — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner-institution: writ petition dismissed, award sustained; petitioner directed to comply (reinstate with 50% back wages till reinstatement) within three months, failing which interest at 7% per annum applies.

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should interfere with the award dated 07.04.2017 in REF.No.2/2016 directing reinstatement with 50% back wages and continuity of service. +1 more

Court's answer

The issue raised in the writ petition is covered by the Order passed in W.P.No.19566/2014; consequently, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the award dated 07.04.2017 in REF.No.2/2016 in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Though no termination order or order of appointment was produced, the records show the respondent worked as a menial worker from 17.12.2007 and was denied employment with effect from 22.01.2014; having worked from 2007 to 2014, he completed 240 working days under the petitioner, and compensation was not paid as required under law when employment was denied.

Key takeaways

The respondent did not join employment because the operation of the award itself was stayed at the petitioner's instance; the petitioner never offered employment subject to the result of the writ petition, so the failure to reinstate is attributable to the stay, not to the respondent's default.ratio¶45
The petitioner is liable to pay 50% of back wages till the date of reinstatement, computed from the date of denial of employment.ratio¶50
The order shall be complied with within three months; failing compliance, the petitioner shall pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount payable.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial law / Article 227 review of labour adjudication award. The Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute, Begur (Chamarajanagar) challenged, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 07.04.2017 in REF.No.2/2016 (Principal District Judge, Chamarajanagar) which partly allowed a workman's reference, ordering reinstatement as menial labourer with effect from 22.10.2014, 50% back wages and continuity of service. The State argued the menial-worker appointment scheme (order dated 16.06.2003) permitted only limited engagement, that no appointment order existed, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The Court found from the records that the respondent worked as a menial worker from 17.12.2007 and was denied employment from 22.01.2014, completing 240 working days without payment of compensation as required under law. Holding the matter covered by its earlier Order in W.P.No.19566/2014 (which the State accepted and complied with), the Court declined interference under Article 227. Since the award's operation had been stayed at the petitioner's instance, the respondent's non-joining was not a default; the Court directed payment of 50% back wages till reinstatement within three months, failing which interest at 7% per annum, and dismissed the writ petition.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2019 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, BEGUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR M., AGA) AND:

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MANJUNATH S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BEGUR VILLAGE AND POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.V. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.04.2017 IN REFERENCE NO.2/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

The Petitioner/State is assailing the award dated 07.04.2017 in REF.No.2/2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Chamarajanagar. In terms of the award, the reference is allowed in part and the petitioner before this Court is directed to reinstate the respondent of this petition with effect from 22.10.2014 as a menial labourer and the Court also directed 50% back wages from 22.10.2014 till reinstatement. The Court also directed continuity of service with other applicable benefits to the said post with effect from 22.10.2014.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

Learned Government Advocate appearing for

the petitioner would submit that the impugned award is untenable. He would refer to Annexure-A, the order dated 16.06.2003 which provides for appointment of menial workers and referring to the said order at Annexure-A would contend that appointment of menial worker is only for a limited period and cannot claim continuity of service, when a menial worker is appointed in terms of the said order. He would also submit that the respondent has not produced any order of appointment to claim the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act and would contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would urge that the issue raised in the present petition is covered in terms of the law declared by this Court in Writ Petition No.19566/2014. He would also submit that the order dated 22.02.2016 in the aforementioned writ petition is accepted by the State and order is complied and

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

would also submit that in the aforementioned writ petition, the respondents in the said petition were also working in a school as the respondent in the present petition.

The Court has considered the contentions raised

at the Bar and perused the records.

Though the Learned Government Advocate

would submit that there is no order of termination passed against the respondent, it is not in dispute that the respondent was denied employment with effect from 22.01.2014. It is also borne out from the records that he was working as a menial worker with effect from 17.12.2007.

Both parties have not produced any order relating to the appointment. However, it is borne out from the records that the respondent worked from 2007 to 2014 as noticed above. Under these circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that he has completed 240 working days under the petitioner and while denying the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

employment, the compensation is not paid as required under law.

The Court is of the view that the issue raised in

the present petition is covered in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.19566/2014 referred to above. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

It is submitted that the respondent had filed execution petition to execute the award in his favour. However, the execution proceeding could not proceed further in view of the stay order granted by this Court. Though the learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent has not joined employment in terms of the impugned award, what is required to be noticed is the operation of the award is stayed. In view of the stay order sought by the petitioner, respondent was not reinstated. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019

HC-KAR

made an offer to the respondent to join the employment

subject to the result of the writ petition.

Under these circumstances, the petitioner is

liable to pay 50% of back wages till the date of reinstatement from the date of denial of employment as already noticed above. The order shall be complied within three months from today, failing which, the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the amount payable at the rate of 7% per annum.

Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed .

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

PSJ

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32