IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.34623/2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN SMT. GAJALAKSHMI W/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ATTENDOR, GAGENAHALLI GRAMAPANCHAYATH, HUNSUR TALUK-571103, MYSORE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINIVAS V, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE.
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYATH, HUNSUR-571105.
4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GAGENHALLI VILLAGE PANCHAYATH OFFICE, GAGENAHALLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571103.
5. KRISHNA URS S/O DASRAJA URS, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 571103.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B P RADHA, AGA FOR R1, SRI B.J.SOMAYAJI, ADV. FOR R2 – R4, V/O DATED: 19/8/19 NOTICE TO R5 IS NOT ORDERED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.29.10.2018 PASSED IN I.I.D.NO.26/2017 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR COURT AT MYSURU VIDE ANNX-G TO THE W.P ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is before this Court calling in question the award passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.26/2017 vide Annexure-G to the writ petition.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Borewell Mechanic with respondent No.4-Gram Panchayath and his appointment came to be approved by respondent No.2.
4. That on 17.10.2016, the petitioner’s husband passed away and the petitioner had made an application for her appointment on compassionate ground. That in the interregnum, respondent No.5 who was in the employment of respondent No.4-Gram Panchayath came to be removed from service for various misconducts of insubordination and misappropriation.
5. That respondent No.5 aggrieved by his removal from the service moved the Labour Court and the same came to be registered as I.I.D.No.26/2017 and by order dated 29.10.2018, the Labour Court was pleased to allow the reference. The petitioner aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
6. Sri.B.J.Somayaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to call in question the impugned award as she is neither a party nor is she aggrieved by the same.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4, under the cover of the award is taking steps to remove the petitioner from the service.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the apprehension of the petitioner is highly misconceived and that respondent No.2 to 4 have no intentions to remove the petitioner from the service of the respondent No.4-Grama Panchayath. Submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 is placed on record.
9. The admitted case of the petitioner is that she has been appointed on compassionate ground in lieu of her husband who died in harness on 17.10.2016. If that be the factual matrix, this Court is of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner is misconceived.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by placing on record the submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR