IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1469 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC CENTRAL DIVISION, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT AND:
SIDDARAJU R.V.
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1(A) SMT. S.M. HEMALATHA, WIFE OF LATE SIDDARAJU R.V., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
1(B) DIVYA G.S.
DAUGHTER OF LATE SIDDARAJU R.V., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.301, KRISHNA KUTIRA APARTMENTS, BOB COLONY, 7TH MAIN ROAD, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560 078.
... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 06.03.2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28108 OF 2014 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE LAST LINE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 06.03.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.28108 of 2014, to the extent wherein the learned Single Judge held that the legal representatives of the deceased are entitled for back-wages in case they succeed, the writ petitioner has filed the instant appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the issue has been predetermined by the learned Single Judge, even though the order was remanded for fresh consideration, which is erroneous. That the question of backwages has also to be considered afresh.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we find no merit in the writ appeal. What the learned Single Judge intended was that in case any relief is to be granted to the deceased employee, obviously the same has to be granted to his sons, since the employee is dead. That on behalf of the employee, his legal representatives would be entitled for all such relief. The order of the learned Single Judge does not mandate grant of backwages. It merely states that in case backwages are awarded, the legal representatives of the deceased employee are entitled to the same.
Under these circumstances, we find no good ground to interfere. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
CT:SM