Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director And Ors vs Vidyadhara S/O Ramachandra Koti on 12 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008
WP No. 203689 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.203689 OF 2019 (L-ID)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.,
REG. OFFICE PWD OFFICE ANNEX,
K.R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR REHABILITATION
AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UKP AND EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
NAVA NAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER AND
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
Digitally signed UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, NAVA NAGAR,
by RENUKA BAGALKOT.
Location: High
Court Of 4. THE ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
Karnataka LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
NO.2-A, UKP PROJECT, BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIDYADHARA S/O RAMACHANDRA KOTI,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008
WP No. 203689 of 2019
R/O SHIRSHYAD, TQ: INDI,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D. P. AMBEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING AT ANNEXURE-B THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 07.01.2019, IN REF.NO.11/2010, ON THE
FILE OF LABOUR COURT, VIJAYAPUR, SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER OF TERMINATION, AND DIRECTING REINSTATEMENT
OF THE ORIGINAL CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT HEREIN WITH
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND
25% BACKWAGES AND HOLD ANNEXURE JUST AND VALID.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged an order dated 07.01.2019, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vijayapura in Reference No.11/2010.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019
2. The respondent was appointed as a First Division Assistant on 18.12.1999 and posted at petitioner No.2 to work under petitioner No.4. Though petitioners had obtained a bond from the respondent that his tenure would be provisionally up to one year, respondent was working continuously from 31.12.1999 in the office of petitioner No.4. He was terminated from service on 20.06.2002 on the ground that he had demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- from one Smt. Mallawwa W/o Gurappa Takkalaki to issue a cheque towards compensation payable to her. The petitioner therefore challenged the aforesaid order of termination before this Court in Writ Petition No.29565/2002, which was disposed off on 06.04.2004 directing the respondent to seek redressal before the Labour Court. Accordingly, the respondent filed a petition before the department of labour to consider it as a reference of a dispute for adjudication by Labour Court. The attempts at conciliation failed and hence the matter was listed before the Labour Court. It was contended before the Labour Court that the order of termination was -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 stigmatic and no procedure was complied by conducting an enquiry against the respondent. It was also contended that such removal was an unfair labour practice and that the termination of service of the respondent was wrongful and arbitrary. The petitioners entered appearance before the Labour Court and contended that the respondent had indulged in a misconduct and therefore the termination was justified. The Labour Court in terms of an order dated 18.07.2002 set aside the termination and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.81903/2012, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh trial. After such remand, the petitioners filed written statement admitting that the respondent was selected by petitioner No.2 and he was appointed on contract basis initially for a period of one year and that the contract ended by efflux of time. Therefore, it was contended that the respondent had no right to continue in service in view -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was contended that the claim of the respondent that there must have been an enquiry as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'KCS and CCA Rules, 1957') was not justified as the respondent was not a government servant and was not entitled to the protection of the KCS and CCA Rules, 1957. The Labour Court after considering the contentions, framed the following issues:
"1) Whether the respondent is justified in terminating the petitioner from service by an order dated 18.07.2002?
2) What order?"
4. The respondent was examined and he marked documents. The petitioners examined witnesses in support of its contentions and marked few documents. The Labour Court after considering the material on record, held that the respondent was appointed on contract basis as a First Division Assistant by petitioner No.2 in terms of an order -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 dated 18.12.1999. It also held that the appointment of the respondent was extended for one more year and thereafter for another year. It also held that the respondent was then transferred to petitioner No.3 where respondent had executed a bond and agreed to the conditions attached to his appointment. It noticed the claim of the petitioners that the petitioners had reserved their right to remove the respondent from work if it was found that his services was not satisfactory or its services were not required. It also found that the employment of the respondent was renewed for a period of one year vide order 31.01.2001 which thereafter was renewed on 18.02.2002 which was to come to an end by 29.12.2002. However, the petitioner was removed from service as per the order dated 24.06.2002 and the removal was based on the allegation that he had demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- to draw a cheque in favour of one Smt.Mallawwa regarding acquisition of her land. The Labour Court therefore, held that the petitioners were bound to conduct a semblance of an inquiry before terminating the services of the -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 respondent and since that mandatory requirement was not complied, it held that the order terminating the services of the respondent was not legal and therefore, allowed the reference and directed the petitioners to reinstate the services of the respondent along with continuity of service and consequential benefits with 25% back wages. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the respondent was appointed on contractual basis and his appointment was renewed from year to year. His appointment came to an end on 29.12.2002. He therefore contended that if the respondent was not removed from service, by efflux of time, his service would have come to an end to 29.12.2022 and therefore, the Labour Court committed an error in directing reinstatement with continuity of service.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue before the Labour Court was the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 stigmatic termination of the respondent from service. He submitted that the Labour Court has dealt with the issue and has held that in matters of termination based on an allegation, an enquiry has to be conducted by the petitioners. He therefore contended that the question whether the term of the respondent came to be an end on 29.12.2002 did not arise for consideration before the Labour Court. Thus, he contends that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and does not warrant interference. He also contends that the non renewal of the term of service of the respondent also amounts to stigmatic termination. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others1.
7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
1 2024 INSC 620 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019
8. The fact that the respondent was employed by the petitioners is not in dispute, though on contract basis. The petitioners are undoubtedly an industry in view of the judgment of Apex Court in case of R.M.Yellatti vs. Assistant Executive Engineer2. Therefore, the unlawful removal of an employee on the basis of alleged misconduct, would fall foul of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act relating to termination. When the employer, proposes to terminate a workman or an employee on alleged misconduct which has serious ramifications so far as the employee or the workman is concerned, the allegation has to be sufficiently established before taking a serious step such as termination from service. This Court cannot ignore the fact that termination of service based on stigma would deprive other employment opportunities to such an employee or a workman. Therefore, the employee before passing any order of termination should be doubly sure that the allegation made against the employee has some substance 2 AIR 2006 SC 355
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019 and in order to be satisfied about the same an enquiry is a must. This is also the constitutional mandate under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Therefore the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent was unlawfully terminated from service cannot be termed improper or unjust. On the contrary, the Labour Court has reinstated the law declared by the Court from time to time and there is no error committed by the Labour Court in directing the reinstatement of the service of the respondent. Insofar as the contention of the respondent that non renewal of the term of service of the respondent, that did not really arise for consideration before the Labour Court. The order discontinuing the services of the respondent is not on the ground that his service had come to an end by efflux of time. If that be the case, this Court cannot consider the question urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the discontinuation of service of the respondent would also amount to a stigmatic termination. That is left open to be considered in an appropriate proceeding.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1008 WP No. 203689 of 2019
9. In view of above, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
(R.NATARAJ) JUDGE RSP/SN LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38 CT:SI