Karnataka High Court
Manjegowda Soudi( Neeruganti) vs Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Ltd on 4 September, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
W.A. No. 825/2008 (L-TER)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
WRIT APPEAL NO.825/2008 (L-TER)
BETWEEN :
MANJEGOWDA SOUDI
(NEERUGANTI),
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O RANGEGOWDA YADEYURU
DODDABEMMATHI POST
ARAKALGUDU TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT
(By SRI. G.S. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. APPEARING FOR
SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.)
AND :
1 CAUVERY NEERAVARI NIGAM LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
4 FLOOR, COFFEE BOARD BUILDING
NO.1, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE 560 001
2 ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NO 2, HARANGI LEFT BANK CHANNEL
SUB DIVISION,
KONANOOR,
ARAKALAGUDU TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
2
W.A. No. 825/2008 (L-TER)
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION,
GORUR
HASSAN DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(By SRI. K S BHARATH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R-1 TO R-3)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, 1961, prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set
aside the order dated 29.01.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge
in W.P. No. 3963/2007 and consequently dismiss the writ petition
filed by the respondents by confirming the award dated 29.02.2006
passed by the Labour Court, Chikkamagalur in I.D.R. No.29/2000.
This Writ Appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day,
K.L.MANJUNATH.J., delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2008 passed in W.P.No.3963/2007 is called in question in this appeal.
2. The appellant Manjegowda was working as 'Soudi' for a period from 23.10.1983 to 06.05.1985. According to him, the respondents refused to give the work. Therefore, he approached the Labour Court to issue a direction to the respondents to reinstate him to service and regularise his services on the ground that he has worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year. The Labour Court accepting the case of the appellant ordered to reinstate the appellant 3 W.A. No. 825/2008 (L-TER) within one month from the date of the publication of the award by denying the backwages. This award was passed on 22.09.2006. The said award was questioned by the respondents by filing a writ petition.
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant is entitled for regularisation, since he raised a dispute 15 years after the alleged refusal to grant the work. However, considering that the appellant had worked for a period of one year five months awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of reinstatement. This order is called in question this appeal.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents, we do not see any merits to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge because the appellant is said to have worked under the respondents for a period of one year five months as daily wager. There is nothing on record to show that he has continuously worked for a period of 240 days in any calendar year. Considering the nature of work of the appellant because the appellant's job is to regulate the water in the Irrigation Department and the Irrigation Department would leave the water to the farmers in a particular season and therefore there is nothing on record to show that he had discharged the duties for a 4 W.A. No. 825/2008 (L-TER) continuous period of 240 days in any calendar year. In the circumstances, if the learned Single Judge has awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation, this Court cannot find fault with the same.
5. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
JT/-