Karnataka High Court
Irubai W/O Basappa Araleshwar vs The District Officer on 16 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
- Bijaiiiiir-t.sD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.
DATED THIS THE 16"" DAY OF SEPT EMBER, 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J. GUI§§Ji?X:L-h:4'tj".i:..
WRIT PETITION N0.9227 OF 2008 (LgREsjV' '
BETWEEN:
Smt. Irubai W/0 Basap_p'fa A1«fa1c;shV'J_éif.
Aged about 53 years, D V ._
Occ: Cook in Govt. Ladies _HosteI,.L 'D
Near 1brahimpu--raa',---. I -.
Bijapur. 3
_ V _ b 9 Petitioner
(By Sri._. "V'.'1'11§{Ianieidav1'>1ir,*- --Ad'}ocate)
AND D D V D D
The Dist1"iCt.'.DOffioe1f,'V7_ "
Dept; of LBackWsrd"CI3ss and Minority,
Respondent
Shivayogimath, Advocate for ' . MD/s Shijifajrogimath Associates) 2 This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and it the Constitution of India, praying to quash the s.__'i'rnpugned order dtd. 24.6.2008, passed in Misc. Appeal seeking regularization of her .SL1:ffiC€ it to say that the matter was before _ the ""LaE*,x,._cjL1r.A4:l"CAo11rt under Section 10 of the Industrial :_uL'isap.utes' Act. The said application was accepted by the IQ No. 12/2008 on the file of III Addl. District, Bijapur, Vide Annexure--J and pass an appropriate writ, order or any other direction thereby confirming the order of issuing distress warrant dated 3.4.2008 passed learned CJM, Bija.pur in Crl.Misc.N0.37/2003. This petition coming on for orders court made the following:
Even though the mat_terf'_isflvlistedtforjorders on the application lhearingf' ':i'sV..tal{en up for final disposal t;athVl'the counsel.
initially appointed as a cook in the re'spon_C1en,t4;.l.hostell"'iri the year 1983. The service of the petitiolrierwas 'not regularized. She issued a legal . V.''''baci5wa.g'es''t' thewptetitioner are to be fixed with effect till she attains the age of Vipphhackwages were not paid, the petitioner initiated protteeciiiigs before the learned Magistrate under Section Lu Labour Court and award was passed directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 01.01.1990 and to extend ail consequential benefits.
Aggrieved by the said order. the respondent this Court by way of a writ petition 2890/2003. The said writ petition .\?\4f'ElS"'4'(.1V1'$v.V"I')..(:.0.'..'V:'3vaCe"V('I.1VV: 0"
22.1 1.2006 holding that the petitioner Worked for more than for all the benefits. that during the pendency petitioner had attained the tciiuevstion arose as to from which are to be fixed. This Court Whi1e..disposing<of tticietvyvrit petition directed that the superannuation, which was on 12.03.2004-. Since the d V. °f0u"ri~d. tiiat"i't.he question of petitioner's entitlement after A*she;~ "att~a,ined superannuation does not arise T'v..*.riVet petwitiori that her backwages are required to be e._«'d_eterAiiiir2ed with effect from 01.01.1990 till she attains 15 Sub~section [2] of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
i)urin.g the pendency of the Said proceedings the respondents have paid a. sum of ?2.40.300/- as wages due upto 12.03.2004. Indeed drier die "
said amount, another appiictation 'id petitioner for an 8.C1C1itiOI1E1lV>S1;iTf11_pOf "the h' period between 13.03.2004 1°i-.2006' date of disposal of the Writ was accepted by the distress warrant was' the said order the respon:vdentsAu.:filfidiiifiéjz hudrivder Section 17 of the Payment of learned Appellate Judge has accepted._:the.fappeai of the respondent and has inasmuch this Court had specifically directed in the er1titlern'e.nt.4of._the petitioner after her superannuation is V 0 reeo'.'r"ded:Ahy':t,he learned Appellate Judge. I am of the the age of superannuation. Hence the appiieation/appeal filed by the respondent was ac:eept.ed and the distress warrant was set aside, * which the workm nis eforet is.C--ou,rt. 3 have ahear the ea:rned"e,o*unse1_ ftjrvv the 1 petitioner as Well as the, _1'earned"~..eounbs't:1':tforn respondent. 0. it it it
4. Indeed this orifiari was of the View that entit1ement_t"or backwages would be she attains the age of supera1i_n»uati'<:11.,:"'i:'~':,f}'hat° backwages having been Ca1eu1ated_ the View that the question of petitioner seeking.Ai'u;_rther"JaInount from 13.03.2004 to 22.13.020.06 eeri;;ain1yv}:ioes not arise inasmuch as the nothing more. That is the finding ea we 6 View 111211, the question of get.ti11g any more monetary benefits on the basis of the order passed by t.he._'LV.2it<3tq't,:v;:
Court or by this Court does not arise. The order does not warrant interference, is,' rejected. ' Consequently Misc.WV.»8_Q9.85/Q01'O' .f:1'e;:1''¥.;fz5r'~~eé,r1y '' V hearing stands disposedztoff ;_' "
st self ~ §§B@E