Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka Power And Anr vs Uttam Kumar And Ors on 19 December, 2024
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB
WA No. 200020 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200020 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE KARNATAKA POWER
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE AT KAVERI BHAVAN,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560009.
2. THE DIRECOT (ADMN AND HR)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LIMITED,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560009.
...PETITIONERS
Digitally signed (BY SRI SUNDARSWAMY NAGANAND, SR. COUNSEL FOR
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADV.)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. UTTAM KUMAR S/O PANDURANG
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O PLOT NO.12, NGO'S COLONY,
NEW JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABGURAGI - 585102.
2. TIPPANNA S/O MARUTI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O H.NO.135, NEAR WATER TANK
AT POST SIKENDARAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB
WA No. 200020 of 2020
TQ. & DIST. BIDAR - 585401.
3. YATHEESHA S.B S/O MAHESHWARAPPA B.,
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O GOUDARA STREET SURAHONNE,
TQ. HONNALI,
DIST. DAVANAGERE - 577223.
4. RAVIKANTH S/O BEERAPPA
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AT POST: KALLUR,
TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR - 585330.
5. SHIVAKUMAR AWARALLI S/O BHAGANNA
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O AT POST: AWARALLI, TQ. AFZALPUR
POST: BIDANOOR,
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585265.
6. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORATE GENERAL
OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
SHRAMA SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110001.
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560001.
8. THE DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING,
GOVENMENT OF KARNATAKA
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
KAUSHALYA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
NEAR DIARY CIRCLE, HOSUR ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560029.
9. DATTU UDABAL S/O MALLIKARJUN
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB
WA No. 200020 of 2020
R/O BEN CHINCHOLLI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
DIST: BIDAR - 585414.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH PATIL, ADV. FOR R1;
SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI & SIDHARTH BABURAO, ADVS. FOR
R2 TO R5;
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI FOR R6;
SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R7 & R8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.NO.204798-802/2015
DATED 20.12.2019.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
1. The Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited is before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.204798-802/2015 dated 20.12.2019.
2. The private respondents herein had filed the writ petition aggrieved of the fact that though they were trained apprentice, they were not selected to the post of Junior Station Attendants, in terms of the notifications -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB WA No. 200020 of 2020 dated 31.12.2014 and 12.06.2015 issued by the appellant
- Corporation. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. U.P.Parivahan Nigam Shishukhs Berozgar Sangh and Others (1995) 2 SCC 1 wherein it was held that "Other things being equal, the trained apprentice should be given preference over the direct recruits and for this, a trainee need not be required to register to get his name sponsored by any employment exchange", allowed the writ petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S. Naganand appearing for the appellant - Corporation however submits while taking this Court though the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was based on Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961 which reads as under:
"22. Offer and acceptance of employment: 6(1) Every employer shall formulate its own policy for recruiting any apprentice who has completed the -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB WA No. 200020 of 2020 period of apprenticeship training in his establishment.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), where there is a condition in a contract of apprenticeship that the apprentice shall, after the successful completion of the apprenticeship training, serve the employer, the employer shall, on such completion, be bound to offer suitable employment to the apprentice, and the apprentice shall be bound to serve the employer in that capacity for such period and on such remuneration as may be specified in the contract."
4. It is pointed out from the judgment itself that the original writ petitioners therein had received training in the workshop of the UPSRTC which had issued the notification of recruitment. Therefore, having regard to Sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, such directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the present case, the original writ petitioners were not trained in the training centre of the appellant - Corporation. This distinction was not noticed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the private respondents - writ petitioners however had filed a memo today along with certain additional documents. Learned counsel points out -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB WA No. 200020 of 2020 to some of the decisions taken by the appellant - Corporation subsequent to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that at the highest level, decision has been taken by the appellant - Corporation to appoint the petitioners following the provisions of KEB recruitment and promotion regulations, by extending age relaxation in terms of the Board order dated 13.03.1997 as one time measure after completion of ongoing recruitment process for the said posts. It is also submitted that some of the petitioners received training in the training Centre of the appellant - Corporation.
6. Learned Senior counsel Sri S.S Naganand however submits that, he does not have the benefit of looking into the additional documents now sought to be produced by the learned counsel for private respondents herein.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel and on going through the said judgment in the case of UPSRTC (supra) and having regard to the expressed provisions contained in Sub- -7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:9912-DB WA No. 200020 of 2020 section (1) of Section 22 of the Apprentices Act, 1961, this Court is of the considered opinion that the positive directions issued by the learned Single Judge to appoint the petitioners as Junior Station Attendants and regularize their services in the existing vacancies or to create equal number of posts to accommodate the petitioners, cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, if subsequently the appellant
- Corporation has taken a decision to appoint apprentice trained candidates, which may or may not include private respondents herein, the appellant - Corporation may go ahead and make the appointments accordingly. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
8. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of in view of the disposal of writ appeal. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47