Karnataka High Court
Sharada Vilas Educational ... vs J Umesh S/O L Javaraju on 16 September, 2011
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit, S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 201 1
PRESENT
Tim HODFBLE MR.JUS'i'ICE v.G.sABH.A;;}iIT;.P/[f $7 _
AND
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE s.:x.sAT:?A;NARAY;m AVP1 T T
WRIT APPEAL N0.54g§;_QF 2006
C/W WRIT APPEAL No.54*a OF 2903
c/W WRIT APPEAL No.55e V01? 2006 (S-RES)
I. SharadaVi1as EduCatjQVi'3a_1 h'
Institutions iifiégd.) ' ._ 7
Krishv:'1a1:1urth§}1§:ura'm,2.
Represented by is S.€Cr.<;:t;¥.1y.
2. The Prifiz:_£pa_l, V . _
Shatjada Vilgis 'College
_ \V _ Kr§shna1nurti1--ypura.m,
" """" " COMMON
A _ APPELLANTS.
{B§2'~..ST'.i_=SUbf2';{1"{';3i3y2%§ Adv, for
Rig' S-.Asho}: ..H;1ra1T1aha}§1, Adv.)
. émg;
_ PVf"g';;:::;ss2:,
;;5sLg€:Ev.abC§'u%. 35 Yeazfi,
5339?.' 0" LJ éivaraj as
H --§'\?;0.2_._?§,29;'4, 2%? Cmss,
i\>
Ashokpuram,
MYSORE. WRESPONDENT IN
'W.A N0.5-48/2006 (By Sri..N.VageeSh, Adv.) AND:
Gfiangaiah, Aged about 38 Years, S/0 Late Govindappa, N0555, 531 Cross, Jarlathanagar, T. K. Layout, MYSORE. ire » (By Sri.N.Vageesh. Adv.) AND:
D.M.Sukresh, ' 23/0 Sri Matti G0w(€a_V,':-. V Aged about 4LO_ Yaérs-;;;.__ _ Residing at No;:2£$Q7, _ 431 Cross, " ' MYSORE. " V " ' «' H ...RESPONDENT IN Mé ' ' " " W.A NO.550/2006 (By Sri».4I§§}'V'3Ege€ash ' ' ! \VTE;'ii--v 1330.548/2006 is filed under Section 4 of the I:§arnafakva"-Jjfigh._(£0u1"t Act? praying to set asid€ the order paSS.eS;~i:1 \7v'f'ij§£%1?:t,iti0n i\Zo,48361 /2004 dateé i27.O2,2UO6. Vi-5:'i.€,V';:1';.p'i}f>§;2:aE N0.549[2006 is filéd unéer S~E:{§ti0}§1 4 sf the V"': T' '-E{3.rjr:ataka..'High Cant: Act, praying: :0 Set aside the erder _ §%f;:z%$e?£§..:;'§: Wrii §9t1:%:i{;:": §€c:.»*%838@/2QQa'i& d21*é;e;@ E?'.fi2,28G8? 'w1.ANo;549/2006' Writ Appeal N0550/2008 is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the erder passed. in Writ Petition N0.483E39/2004 dated l.7.02.20€}5. These Appeals coming on for Final Hearinghthiséfday. V.G.SABHAHIT J., delivered the following: '* A --7' ' $.__ These three appeals are i'iled":.'byf_"'the ijjgn w.i>.i\ios.4sa59/2004, 48350 /2604 and :_483Gv:1l/izifivesibeing aggrieved by the common. order--dated-~_,_l7.02;2_QQ€l, wherein the iearned Single Judge set aside the order passed by the Mysore, dated 21.10.2004 and i:ia.tt:er to the Educational Appellate7fF1'ibunalffQf 'fresh orders in accordance with law as the Vbbsefvatzons made in the said order.
i*e'spQ1ide:f1tvs..i3Wv these appeals filed the Writ Petitions eiiaileh'giAIi§:'l€§fie:::'side}: passed by the Prineipai Judge and Edueatisiaal.iiipfieliate TFibu,f'iai, lviyssrei in EAT l\iss.i0, 8 isjsssi ressettiiiveiy ii'; WL§.Nss.¢i~835§f2004i and 48381/2004, 'mi-"li€3i"€ifi the appeais flied by Writ pet.it,isiier's were dismissed by srder dated 21.10-2004. it is the Contentions of the writ petitionets that they are absorbed as Group "'D" Ernployeea'r1§3?d_d'~~.the reepondents during the years from 1Q93 to were paid consolidated salary, 1,hE3ii""'S.€I'V"i(3€S hwe1*eV"t1_ti1isedV'g Continuously with short breaks. butdfioittid services were continued till Vti:~e*~,yea.r'V" 1__99.9V fi\I*\.fhi(3if1' period they were paid SEfi:3,}"y €X'eI1:r(j't1¥'§'Hg st1i'nme.1*§Vaeati0ns and the respondent «M 1Vtan.age1f-neziit Contribution towards the P.F.§ reiieved in the month of eervidce. Being aggrieved by the said the employees preferred the appeals' tzeforedd'tjne'*$tiueati0na1 Appellate Tribunal in E,A.'I' 13-_f 1. respectively' and the Tribunal Qftiey 21tt'Q';iOO4 held that the appeflants were re};i_ev.er3[ fezewiee as per the terma of contractual dd _a.ppeii2.t.m§:nt-:"'§'he relieving ef the appefiante Wae met punitive H " 'a8:.§L1re"'and €'%'€1'E etherwiee the '_§':*ibuma} heid that there was:
__«eee'.,a'1e'fi':. in the aepeaie as the aetien *w'ae met §'an§.t.it:e and T 'aTCe{>rd§;:";g1y dismisaed the appeaiss by exfder dated 21, 10_?;QGéw Being aggrieved by the said order, Writ Petitions were filed making the aferesaid averrnents and the learned Smgielt-Iudge after considering the contentions appearing held that the Tribunal has not at all gone ll fact in detail as to whether thellilorceletjlv it amounts to termination of sewiee was '.e-implieitelr laftlerlthet. contractual period is over or hatfing regatd lthegfacts and circumstances of the and ,p_eri0d for which the appellants were em_p10yed...We'e puni.tj'_§fe Vingriature and since the said questl_on net and the questien as to _Vap.l1ljeal..l:i7mrl§uld llelltmder Section 94(1) of the Karnatakei_«lffdueatttonrA<::t;"'te"glepencl upon the finding given by the Tribtmgil anld eeeofclingly remitted the matter to the _"1Tribun;tl"fer passing fresh orders in accordance with law. 5,qlfileingl'e::l§;gi>/ieved«_'ey thelelaid order of allowing the writ petitions V rt3spen§llent'e--l-in the Writ Petittens. 2 these three appeals are filed by the
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondents.
ail. Learned counsel appearing for the appellantel's'ti_b:ealt,t_e'd_V that there was no averment or contentions .1'a1'Se:Cl~ el:l)"ef01ie the". Tribunal as to whether the impugned ;)rd--er 'Wale:"puh:itiVe;_.ir1 nature er removal simplieiter as t,hev~te1'msl'lQf contract"
was not at all averted 01f__e0nten.de(l__b'elbre.lth_ev_AT1j§l511'nal and the learned Single Judge order on the ground which Wef3£s.._ rxotllthe Educational Appellate '£'1~i1:;u'1?;a.1 'the_;jefQre" Vtsrtler of remand is not justified and: aside and accordingly the Writ Petitions arell"liua.l:.l.e to If d:'.a1';1issed. e0lt1AI;eel___appealring for the ap'pella:1ts has taken V1113 Qgmmon Order fiated 2l.lO.2{}04 passed by the"Tr'ii'§u1éla§-l'ej-a§f:;§ the oréer passed by the learneé Single ' giudgel wfhli::h 355 impugzzed in theee appeale. ~ Rm
6. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the ease of Pavanendra Narayan Vetpma. Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PG} ef Medical Sciences and another' in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 520, Wherein"'it.:.isiheidtlvtdzijg' where termination ~ stmplteiter or panzaitive, "i:_hree.__"faet,vefS afe to be considered as test to determine 'and i:he;;:'i*1é1ve*.beei1.L restated in the said decision. uSi.n1i1a'riyV"he"héxs 'else relied upon the decision of Ceurt in" the ease of Chandreshwar Narain Dubejgf Union of India and others 1'9.9:8'j--"SLa.p}"eme Court 2671, wherein held that when there is termination ef'se'rviee._:0f te..§nj30'1'ary employees on disciplinary grouncle-:arithe{1t..:enqnirj2?. same was liable to be set aside 'f_in"t'ieiv' fdfE=i:1i1.e"'previeieéne ef Article 311 of the Cert-stitutien of "Z. We h2t1?e.i'.»givee earefui <:eneide£'at.é.en te the eenitentiene the éeaghed eeueeel a*e.§2pea.ri:1g tee' the .2:§}peE"§2":_me and ::e1"tA1V_f:'i;"::;2ed the materia} en reeerd. The :'nateri23;1 en record E Ex, \' IN' wetfid clearly Show that the Writ petitioners, respondents herein have been working from 1993 to 1999 with the appellants as attenders and it is dear hem made in the petitions as also in the appeal inefile bfefeie the V' Educational Appellate Tribunal tliet "'th_o"u_gh working from 1993 to 1999, they evei*e._.paitiv_"_tAeenSeiir}:A3;tted--..L salary, their services were tutiiieeerjx'*<:0ntinnQ'us1y With short breaks, but from the year xirvefevhvvcontinued till the year 1999 during Whieh '»»__Were paid salary even during sL;:nmc;':- Vaeatienst and.._._.,the respondent - Managemehtt"e1E'se{5pai<§Véteenitibutievnfltowards the PF. Aceeunt and only were issued with the relieve order. Being éVg>;,<griex%ed"- the order, writ petitions were :'vf§:;tefer:*e':iC.hefo1'e,this Ctenhrt. The learned Singie Judge having regefc2._t~tet' %;he..veententi0ns urged before him that the appeais V';::.re not :§iei'%§.%ei:2abie befere the Eétieatieilai Appefiate '4""':v'..T§'%éb*i3Y§.a§ emit the eppeaée Ought it'; have 'seen {flee eefere the 5{:§e<3v'e_n*:§§ie§:t in view «:35 the p:"e2séeie'ne ef Seeéien Qéié} er? the tiiarneteke E§u.e.e.t.ien Act. After eeneiciering the materiai on record and scrutinizzing the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, observed as follewsz "9. It is thus Clear frem the ' '4 reasoning given by the EAT L. h conclusion is based on the:fi;i.*id'iI1g_ regatcding the status of the;"1«peti_ti13vnetfS they were not perms-heht é"1"A1'311'3V:iO_§V/'€(;;'bSf' were appointed as 'tiempeVfs:-fly" empieyheeej that their c1ai111,"i'ca;:f regii}.etijee;t1Qn net well founded. The eetn3e1'ete1y last eight of theverux 331' 'the by the petitionefs tiliet {there AbO3"rd--e'd out from tie make way for ah-Qtf1er' employees and thei*e--te"ereeV thzle' on the part of the ;v:11eJ.1age1eet1't"'viewed in the background of £it{}t'1?;iIit1'€§*;iS'V service rendered by the
---petft:tii:§ners_ for several years in the 'J%;1C3;It{)E€S and the fieeteien ef the msfiiagegnent te invite apptieatiene fer the pests te {ti}. them up 013 tempe":er3: beets etzeeeke we e2'b§tre;°é::eee zmtt egzetafiée ' intezttéene, tt is it} this battkgreuedg the EA'? might te have examined the matter as to ? . '-'~>.
'c. \.1 'a ' \ . 2 10 whether the removal/i:ermi1'1a'ti0n of the petitioners was a penal action so as to' 7 attract the jurisdiction of the BAT Section 94 of the Act.
10. This is not a petitioners approached' see_k}'.11g'~ iv regularisation, but this caseewheire petitioners have app:e§iehecj_ assailing the actieiii. of'_VAvi"m_a.tiagement in refusing to c0ntiriue'AV_thver;n:'v and seeking has misdire.eted ri_o'i] V exshiining the matte1:',iri:..Vifts .. ;§'e:~s;§j.e¢tive. if the acltiori .et'i'i't'he__V:manTsgeme11t in removing the peti'tie11ers' it1':e'i'u sing to reinstate them is ehé;:aC'terised--._ penal, malafide and "'thne_r_1__A.v the EAT wili get the A ' V. 3 ;n_risg:Ei.eiii:)n to examine the matter. Even if it et;r£ie;s"t.i~1e eeneiusien that such refuse} of t3ii'i§;?}.Q§;tj¥:1t€?E":?€ was at disguises aeiien is peiésiise the petitiesers and to make tea}? for " *=,_;::ti*:er set sf '{Z€i1"i§3{}%'i°«EiI°f/xi' empiegzees wii.ir1 ehiique i"Ei€;3i'i'V€ES§ t.hei': aise they iviii tie entitled to maintain the appeals based on the findings of the BAT.
11. If however the EA')? comes t0_j'té'1e.j_~ V A4 c0r1c1usi.on that there is [10 such h on the part of the managetnertt.' rightiy eorttended by the lea}-.ne§'§'teeuf1~se1 the respendents, the .»ap_pea1eA.V_I'I'13y maintainable. Witheift ..:.v'C0r_1sider_itig* crucial aspect, t1r1e__ (hie-'alt wtth' matter on are not germane for. the Qf Ve't§f:t'reV'ersy before it" in my order is ui1su_sttiiti.:>;b}_e;?5 " .
and accordingly 'set a.S:id1ev«t_h'e_12npugned Order passed by the Edueatienai E&ppe13.fai~ie A"v_TfihunaI dated 2E.EQ.200«<§ and :_'j'}f'ez*e,it'£e'z:I:':i:Ir:.e,rr;;vetter ttiiitie '7{':*'ibune.i for passing fresh erdere in ae'etef€§iat:ee"'e.;*i't,}€ iétar by dettiding apex: the 'étague ziature of éhe V'*.r}:*éeI° 3.3 133 fw*h§eit%:er the erder ifl'i§}i.i§_{I1f3d in. the appeei befere " j;-V§§'§e-Vfltiueéiézteiéei AppeE§a€.e '§'*::°£b:,:::a§ te mezieiy wtéai. £3 eeerperéie « te;'E$.e;'.e1H3w'hether it is es. desk fer pimiehmemi _/ pe11a§t;yt either as a disciplinary measure or as victimisation and if it concludes that the order is a cloak for dismissal er retfieval, the appeal will be mair1tainable and it can proeee--Ci.t'VV'te'l' hear and dispose of the appeal on merits.
8. Having regard to the e1boxresaid;»A_faet_e,A fituie learned Single Judge has Considered 1115 e0n~*i.:e'r1tir)'ns xliaieedllt. before him in detail and has for setting aside the order passed Tribunal which was imp'ugne.d in set aside the order and t€j"V.'Edheational Appellate Tribunal te passVf:*esh"0rdei*e.._in accordance with law. There is no merit in the :_ljeo'nt_el"ntt~ens of the learned Counsel appearing f0fe.__tE1e 'atppe1'Ia§§t,s that there is no averment regarding "v;i.etimiea_tien er that the erder Wee by way of *V.p13;':i:_réehr:'1er):.'éi'A e%*..pena1.§t§7'Aa:ed was not simplieétei' er punitivet pu:e'ea1:te.te»_AtE1e' evegttraetuai a.greeme:ifi§ ae ii: :3 eleaa" teem. the V appeal 'eéem{;--.V--V'l§§e}E§3fe the Eidzleaijéetzzil AppeEi2:t:e 'F1°:b*e::al age aiee the r:3§'1s"-.V'i:ie.r" paeeed by the Edueaiieeaé Appellate Tzibmrzal 'ck .s.
''.\t ~_;. ' 9 that the said Contentions has been raised and the same has decided, as the appellants have contended that befehfep the Educational Appeilate Tribunal it had no jL1risd*§e~tidh.__'__t,d the appeal and the appeals ought to have been Government under Sectien 94(1) of the Act and therefore co'nsidera.tj.0:1 of "the said 1q'a'esti§3nVt necessary unless to determine q'uestioI;idr'aised by the appeliants herein about of the appeal and thereafter if the appeals are rh_a:intaiha'h1e,Vditehas to decide the appeais on merpits; a1'fid'__if 'Authority' comes to the eonclusioljihthvat sithpheity and the order is not one of appea}s do not he to the Educatienaip Trthanal and the same has to be madeweiear that the said decistens on the appeais as raised by the appeiiants AA'JhE"9;tEf€ifA3.V'{"l£1S__"iGvd'«:'5€f eensidered by the Elducattehai Appeiiate ' H " 5i'r£h:maL d
9. In View of the abovesaid facts, it is clear that sinee the order Of remand passed by the learned justified, all the contentions are kept open lntbefoxe the Tribunal and the decision that i2.ep<'j4n only while (:0r1sie:iering the queetign ab'o_L1i;* the enzii;:1:1'e oflgorclefe. before the Educational Appe1latevl't'Tl*1b1;I1al"and':the;'ef03"e the same can be relied upon and it does not helpful in contending that..the*.1e2nfnecix"S:ingle'l'Judge ought to have dismissedfile
10. The larder of "p.eSsed by the learned Single Judge is justified andutlxe ,éa.n,idA.o:1'der of remand is also necessitated, _.iv11A_xrie\,fL;'-lief' the eente,n_t_iQ;1s taken by the appellante herein regarding the zjature sf order impugned V befere "the as the ftmum 9? appeal would ehange on 'the findl11.g"At§1et weuid be ggiveti hey the Tribtizzei as; pee the 4;}':'=-iféezf ei'~the Eeazrzéeel Si:1gl.e ehgdgge ae refeweil tea 3;'e€:v2:"e eed the have been pending fer five year-3 anfi the reependente are out of employment. Though the matter was remitted to the Tribunal by order dated 17.02.2006, the flied these appeals devoid of merit and in stay granted by this Court in tihesemapgaeals, -:theV Appellate Tribunal has not pr0cee€i_eti__{2viththe».pretéegdiwngs and therefore it is necessary tifie sppellants for the inconvenience ea*Ls_.sed jre'spe11de'fiVts.'Ax Accordingly we pass the following:
Appeais ttost sf Rs.1G,OO0/~ each payabie :v'by= 'herein to the petitioner's in w.1:-mos.48359/2QVe4,'t'X48350/2004 and 48361/2004. The __.esst the" paid «veii:.h'er ts the respondents or deposited '::.\efo::5e" the.'V4EZd};:te:é1ti0:1aI Appefiate Tribunal to be disbursed te V the 'ae§:»eE221ht;s'j__1s:efsre the Tribunaig vans are tespsztdents 22:1 'these sppeeis within six weeks free: today, .fs:i§ing s:h1?_e1'i 4:na%ee%ss2i':=;*_§r a:<':t§::::'§ stsséé be tskezz bf: the "E"'.:ib'u:"_:s§ ts .1"é;':fj@'£»-'€Y' the .__js3;me%, as arrears sf tend revenue' E6 The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appe:{i§.f';L$.";)er the direction issued by the learned Single Jucigb months from the date of receipt of ccgpjg? of 3§§§3 X A Si»;
V §U§@§ AGV.