Karnataka High Court
Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner on 4 September, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.6564/2014(S-RES)
BETWEEN:
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICAL
LTD. FOUNDRY & FORGE
DIVIVISION, POST BOX 1791
BANGALORE 560 017.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER (H.R)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJARAM T., ADVOCATE FOR
FOR RSBG LAW FIRM, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIDAR DISTRICT,
BIDAR.
2. SRI BABU MAHATRE,
S/O KALLAPPA, MAHATRE,
R/AT SIRIJA MANZIL BUILDING,
MUREGESH PALYA, H. A. L. POST,
BANGALORE-560017
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHWETA KRISHNAPPA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE LETTER DATED 19.11.2013 PASSED BY THE
R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Hindustan Aeronautical Limited Foundry & Forge is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the 1st respondent as per Annexure-B.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was appointed as Helper in its establishment on 16.9.1976 and he was promoted to the post of Senior Helper on 1.11.1985 and he was confirmed in the said post w.e.f 27.5.1986 and thereafter on certain misconduct, charge sheet was issued to the 2nd respondent on 15.2.1990 and he has filed reply on 15.3.1990. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the 2nd respondent, 3 the petitioner appointed the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after holding detailed enquiry held that the charges are proved. Thereafter the petitioner by an order dated 15.4.1999 dismissed the 2nd respondent from service holding that the 2nd respondent is guilty of the charges levelled against him.
3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute under the provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties by the Judgment & Award dated 16.10.2006 rejected the dispute raised by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent aggrieved by the said Award passed by the Labour Court filed Writ Petition No.4992/2007 before this Court. This Court after hearing both the parties by its order dated 4.2.2013 allowed the writ petition and made the Rule absolute and set aside the order of dismissal made by the present petitioner - 4 Management dated 15.4.1999 as well as the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 16.10.2006 in I.D. No.137/1999. However liberty was granted to the present petitioner - Management to refer the matter to the Caste Verification Committee constituted under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Act, 1990 and thereafter take action in accordance with law.
4. Thereafter the 1st respondent who is the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee issued the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 as per Annexure-B stating that the Tahsildar has reported that the ST - Gond certificate issued to the 2nd respondent - Babu Mahatre is found to be correct. Hence the petitioner - HAL has filed the present writ petition for the relief sought for.
5. After hearing both the parties, this Court by an order dated 3.4.2017 directed the jurisdictional Caste 5 Verification Committee to conduct an enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc., ) Act, 1990 and submit report before this Court and also observed that pendency of the writ petition shall not be treated as an impediment to the Caste Verification Committee to render the report on merits. Thereafter the learned Government Advocate filed memo dated 20.7.2017 alongwith the report of the Caste Verification Committee which consisted of three members viz., (i) Member Secretary & Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Bidar; (ii) Member and Deputy Secretary, Zilla Panchayat (Admn.,), Bidar and (iii) Deputy Commissioner & President District Level Caste Verification Committee, Bidar. The report of the Caste Verification Committee reads as under:
"The District Caste Verification Committee meeting was held on 15.04.2017 morning at 11.00 am in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner. In the said meeting of the 6 Committee, the details of the verification of the caste certificate are as follows:
The Tahsildar and Asst, Director, Social Welfare department has submitted report to the Deputy Director, Social Welfare Officer, Bidar, confirming that Sri. Babu Maitre, son of Sri. Kallappa Maitre, at Muchalamba, Taluk Basavakalyana, Dist. Bidar, belongs to scheduled tribe community (Gond).
On verification of the connected documents it is seen that the incumbent belongs to scheduled tribe community and based on the caste certificate document, it is decided that the incumbent belongs to scheduled tribe (Gond) community.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Secretary Member and Deputy Deputy Commi-
& Deputy Director Secretary ssioner &
Social Welfare Zilla Panchayat, President Dist.
Department, Bidar. (Admin), Bidar Level Caste
Verification
Committee.
Dist.Bidar.
6. The memo dated 20.7.2017 alongwith the report of the Caste Verification Committee ('CVC' for short) is placed on record. The CVC report reveals that on verification of 7 the relevant documents, CVC has given the report to the effect that the 2nd respondent belongs to ST - Gond community.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
8. Sri Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner -
Management vehemently contended that the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-B stating that the 2nd respondent - Babu Mahatre belongs to ST - Gond community is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that the 2nd respondent was appointed as Helper in the year 1976 in the establishment of the petitioner - HAL by producing ST - Gond certificate and some suspicion was raised regarding veracity of the certificate and therefore enquiry was conducted and on enquiry, it was found that he belongs to kuruba community. After holding enquiry, the Management dismissed the 2nd 8 respondent from service. The same was affirmed by the Labour Court in I.D. No.137/99. Therefore he submits that the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent is not in accordance with law. He further contended that the very Deputy Commissioner issued the letter dated 24.10.1989 vide Annexure-A holding that the 2nd respondent belongs to kuruba community and in the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013, it is mentioned that the 2nd respondent belongs to ST- Gond community. Once the Deputy Commissioner has tendered evidence before the Enquiry Officer stating that the 2nd respondent belongs to kuruba community, the issue of impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 raises doubt. Therefore he sought to quash the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner by allowing the present writ petition.
9. Per contra, Sri V.S. Naik, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that this Court to resolve the controversy 9 between the parties by an order dated 3.4.2017 directed the Caste Verification Committee to conduct enquiry as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Act, 1990 in respect of the 2nd respondent and submit the report. The said order passed by this Court dated 3.4.2017 has reached finality and now on the basis of the order passed by this Court, the Caste Verification Committee submitted report stating that the 2nd respondent belongs to the ST - Gond community. The petitioner has not challenged the CVC report till today. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further contended that the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition NO.4992/2007 set aside the order of dismissal dated 15.4.1999 passed by the petitioner - Management so also the award dated 16.10.2006 passed by the Labour 10 Court in I.D. No.137/99. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent continued in the post held by him as on the date of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He further contended that the 2nd respondent has retired on 28.2.2013. Admittedly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not questioned. Therefore he sought to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Smt. Shwetha Krishnappa, learned AGA while justifying the impugned order submits that in pursuance of the controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to issue of Annexure-B by the Deputy Commissioner, this Court by an order dated 3.4.2017 directed the jurisdictional Caste Verification Committee to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.,) Act, 1990 and accordingly, the Caste Verification Committee conducted an enquiry and 11 submitted the report. The same is produced alongwith the memo filed before this Court on 20.7.2017, which clearly indicates that the 2nd respondent belongs to ST - Gond community. Therefore she sought to dismiss the writ petition.
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the memo filed by the State Government dated 20.7.2017 alongwith the Caste Verification Proceedings dated 15.4.2017 carefully.
13. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was appointed as Helper in the petitioner - Hindustan Aeronautical Limited on 16.9.1976 and he was promoted to the post of Senior Helper on 1.11.1985 and he was confirmed in the said post w.e.f. 27.5.1986. Thereafter on certain misconduct, he was dismissed from service on 12 15.4.1999 which was the subject matter of the dispute before the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No.137/99. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties by its Award dated 16.10.2006 exercising the powers under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act rejected the reference.
14. It is also not in dispute that the 2nd respondent who is aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court filed Writ Petition No.4992/2007 before this Court. This Court while deciding the writ petition by an order dated 4.2.2013 observed that this Court in many cases consistently taking view that in such circumstances, the matter has to be referred to Caste Verification Committee constituted under the Act and after receipt of the report from the Caste Verification Committee, it is for the Management to take action in accordance with law. Since such a procedure is not followed, the writ petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be allowed and rule 13 was made absolute and the order of dismissal passed by the Management dated 15.4.1999 and so also the Award of the Labour Court dated 16.10.2006 were set aside and liberty granted to the respondent - Management to refer the matter to the Caste Verification committee.
15. Admittedly in the present case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 4.2.2013 made in Writ Petition No.4992/2007 has reached finality. It is also not in dispute that in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Deputy Commissioner issued letter dated 19.11.2013 stating that the 2nd respondent belongs to the ST - Gond community and the certificate issued to him was found to be correct.
16. It is also not in dispute that this Court by an order dated 3.4.2017 directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Caste Verification 14 Committee to conduct an enquiry as mandated under sub- section (3) of Section 4-C of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc., ) Act, 1990 and submit the report. The said order passed by this Court directing the Deputy Commissioner as Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee to conduct enquiry has reached finality. That order is not challenged by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute in pursuance of the direction issued by this Court, the Caste Verification Committee after holding detailed enquiry under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner and other members has submitted the report stating that the 2nd respondent belongs to the ST - Gond community. Admittedly the said report of the Caste Verification Committee is not at all questioned by the petitioner before this Court till today. In view of the same, the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 issued by the 1st respondent subsequently culminated into the Caste 15 Verification Committee report dated 15.4.2017. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned letter dated 19.11.2013 which subsequently culminated into the report of the Caste Verification Committee dated 15.4.2017 and the same is in accordance with law.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that during the legal battle between the petitioner and the respondents, the 2nd respondent has attained the age of superannuation on 28.2.2013. Therefore the petitioner - Management shall take necessary steps to disburse all the benefits accrued to the 2nd respondent in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-