Karnataka High Court
The President vs Mr N Bheema Bhat S/O Gopalakrishna Bhat on 12 July, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
WRIT PETITION No.18710/2011 (CS-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE PRESIDENT
ALIKE SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,
SATHYA SAI VIHAR,
(VIA) VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. - 574 243.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ALIKE SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,
SATHYA SAI VIHAR,
(VIA) VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. - 574 243.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.M.J.ALVA & SRI.PRADEEP.H.S., ADVs.)
AND:
1. MR.N.BHEEMA BHAT,
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
ALIKE VILLAGE POST
SATHYA SAI VIHAR,
BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K. - 574 243.
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
2
MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION,
MANGALORE, D.K.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADV. FOR C/R1
SRI.S.CHANDRASHEKARIAH, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED AWARD DT.16.12.10 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.786/08
ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY UP SETTING THE ORDERS
DT.31.10.08, PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASST. REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BANGALORE SUB-DIVISION,
MANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-A.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal erred in taking divergent view as against the order passed by the original Authority-respondent No.2 herein. He would contend that respondent No.1 was inducted into the service in the year 1966 and thereafter, he was removed from the service on the allegation of fraud and misappropriation of funds and subsequently, he came to be acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. That, in 3 pursuance of the direction of the Co-operative Development Officer, respondent No.1 came to be re-appointed into the service of the petitioner-Society on 30.05.1990 and retired on 31.05.2006.
3. It is the case of respondent No.1 that on his acquittal by the Court, he came to be reinstated into service.
4. On a query from this Court as to whether respondent No.1 had called in question the order dismissing him from service, it is fairly submitted that the same is not called in question and the same holds good even as on today. Hence, the fact remains that the appointment of respondent No.1 can only be treated as fresh appointment and question of respondent No.1 being entitled for continuity of service from 1966 would not arise.
5. The respondent No.1 on his retirement from the service of the petitioner's Bank pray for payment of DA/Bonus/Gratuity/Leave encashment and that in all, he 4 was entitled for a sum of Rs.5,78,923/-. It is further contended that apart from the retirement benefits, the respondent No.1 is also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,77,470/- and that the same has been ignored. Hence, he preferred a claim petition before respondent No.2 praying to award a sum of Rs.1,93,390/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. The said claim petition filed under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act came to be rejected. Being aggrieved, he approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has totally failed to look into the material on record and that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is without any basis and the Tribunal has proceeded to award the claim even without there being any material to demonstrate the legality of the claim.
7. Per contra, Sri.M.Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.1 would contend that the 5 order is validly made by setting out reason. He would reiterate the findings of the Appellate Tribunal.
8. On a detail perusal of the order impugned dated 16.12.2010, it is apparent that the Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on a summary basis and no specific fact which enables respondent No.1 to claim DA at any particular rate is either discussed or set out in the order . Further, it has not even narrated the basis for its conclusion that respondent No.1 is entitled for payment of DA and leave encashment. There is not even a prima-facie finding stating that respondent No.1 is indeed entitled for the total leave encashment as requested by him. The Tribunal has not even deemed necessary to look into the fact as to whether the bye-laws and the Acts permit such claim.
9. In that view of the matter, the reasoning appears to be hypothetical and the conclusion is not based on sound reasoning and in consonance with law.
6
Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for disposal afresh. The Tribunal is directed to look into the factual aspects of the dispute and pass a considered order.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VM CT:HR