Karnataka High Court
Superintending Engineer vs Smt. Dilshadbegum A. Murdakhan on 26 July, 2017
Bench: A.S.Bopanna, H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE A. S. BOPANNA
AND
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H. B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY
WRIT APPEAL No.100279 OF 2017 [L-TER]
BETWEEN:
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
O & M CIRCLE, HESCOM,
TABIB LAND,
HUBBALLI-580020.
... APPELLANT
(By Sri M B KANAVI ADV.)
AND:
SMT. DILSHADBEGUM A. MURDAKHAN
(AFTER MARRIAGE CALLED AS
SMT.DILSHADBEGUM
W/O KHAJASAB SIDDIQUE,
H.NO.259, Vth CROSS,
ANAND NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI,
HUBBALLI-580024.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri. RAVI HEGDE ADV.)
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS
HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
14.03.2017 PASSED BY THE SINGLE BENCH OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. No.64068/2011, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA
THIS DAY, A.S.BOPANNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though I.A. No.2 of 2017 is listed for consideration, the appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and disposed of through this order.
2. The appellant herein was before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.64068 of 2011 [L-TER], assailing the award dated 08th November 2010 passed in Reference No.43 of 2008.
3. The learned Single Judge through the interim order dated 14th March 2017 has directed the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent into service without 3 back-wages, making it subject to the result of the Writ Petition.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that such order passed by the learned Single Judge is not justified in a circumstance where the appellant has contended that the relief granted through the award dated 08th November 2010 in reference No.43 of 2008 would be barred by res judicata inasmuch as the respondent herein was before this Court in Writ Petition No.3533 of 2007 [S-DIS] with regard to the same issue and this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition through the order dated 15th June 2007.
5. On the said contention, it is unnecessary for us to express any opinion at this stage, since these are aspects which is required to be considered by the learned Single Judge on its merit.
4
6. However, insofar as the issue that pertains to this appeal, we notice that the learned Single Judge has kept in view the award being passed by the Labour Court in favour of the respondent and in that light, has granted the interim order. With regard to the legal position that the wages as contemplated under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would enure to the beneficiary of the award if such award is challenged in the higher forum and the wages as contemplated therein is required to be paid is no more res judicata. In that circumstances, when such wages is required to be paid and in a circumstance, when it is noticed that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, such wages as contemplated therein would be paid by utilizing public money without extracting work from the beneficiary of the award. In such circumstance, it would be just and proper to direct the reinstatement so as to extract work and pay the amount.
5
7. In such circumstance when the learned Single Judge has exercised the discretion to direct the appellant herein to reinstate the respondent herein so as to extract work and has made it subject to the result of the Writ Petition, we see no error committed by the learned Single Judge so as to call for interference in this appeal.
All contentions of the parties on merits are left open to be urged in the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE âÎș/â