IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.47899 OF 2018 (GM - RES) AND WRIT PETITION NOS.49427-49431 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
1. AIR CMDE TEJBIR SINGH, AOC, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 63, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, AIR FORCE SCHOOL, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063.
2. SQN LDR K.BALACHANDAR, STATION EDUCATION OFFICER, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 63, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE SCHOOL, YELAHANKA, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063.
3. WG CDR. REKHA AGARWAL, PRESIDING OFFICER, ICC STATION ACCOUNTS OFFICER, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063.
4. SQN LDR SAKSHI, ICC MEMBER, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063.
5. SQN LDR.D.CHATURVEDI, ICC MEMBER, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063.
6. SMT.K.N.ANITHA, ICC MEMBER, NO.414, AIR FORCE STATION, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 063. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. PREMA LATHA SHARMA, W/O JWO ARUN KUMAR SHARMA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT H.NO.252, BUILDING NO.2, BHARATI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 562 157. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.V.G.S.NARAYAN, ADVOCATE) - - -
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2018 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 PASSED IN M.A.NO.06/2017 BY THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) (ANNEXURE – A) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNTENABLE AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. B.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.V.G.S.Narayan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, they are heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 11.9.2018 passed by the Appellate Court.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the respondent herein had filed appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibtion and Redressal Act, 2013) inter alia praying for setting aside her termination order dated 31.01.2017. In the aforesaid appeal, the respondent herein filed interlocutary application for a direction to the respondents therein to record their voice recording samples by referring them to forensic expert to corroborate that the certificate of settlement dated 09.1.2017 signed between the respondent herein and 4th respondent in the appeal is obtained by intimidating, forcing and threatening the respondent herein. The Appellate Court by an impugned order dated 11.09.2018 has allowed the aforesaid application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the internal complaint committee is not a committee of The Indian Air Force Education and Cultural Society, but it is a society which runs and manages the school. It is further submitted that the respondent herein was not an employee of the petitioners’ School, but she was an employee of the school which was being run by the Society.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the Appellate Court.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the settlement which was allegedly recorded between the respondent herein and 4th respondent in the appeal pending before the Appellate Court was recorded in the presence of petitioner Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6, who are the Members of the internal complaint committee of Indian Air Force. Thus, the compromise between the respondent herein and 4th respondent in the appeal was recorded in the presence of aforesaid petitioners in respect of which the respondent herein has made allegation that the aforesaid compromise was arrived at by intermediating, forcing and threatening her. Therefore, she is seeking examination of the voice samples of the aforesaid petitioners by Forensic Lab expert.
8. The respondent herein may not be the employee of the Indian Air Force and internal complaint committee may not be the body of the Society.
However, the aforesaid fact has no reliance to the issue involved in the impugned order. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise it is well settled in law that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors of a judgment of a Court acting within its limitation. It can be exercised where the orders is passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. [See: ‘JAI SINGH AND OTHERS VS. M.C.D. AND OTHERS’, (2010) 9 SCC 385 and ‘SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL’, (2010) 8 SCC 329] and ‘RADHE SHYAM AND ANOTHER VS. CHABBINATH AND OTHER; (2015) 5 SCC 423.
For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB