IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR W.P.NO.40131/2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN MOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGE 55 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED AMIR SAB, MARKET ROAD, OPP. BHAGVAN COFFEE WORK, K.R.PET TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V S VINAYAKA, ADV.) AND 1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, MYSORE AND RURAL DIVISION AND CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION-571313 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, K.H.ROAD, BANGALORE-560027.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER APPLICATION NO.26/05 DTD.11.10.2010 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT MYSORE ANNEX-A ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. IAs-1/2015 & 1/2017 are preferred praying to condone the delay of 1375 days in preferring the writ petition.
3. It is submitted that subsequently, the petitioner has approached the Magisterial Court for enforcement of the award passed and has sought for permission to prosecute the authorities for non-payment of retiral benefits pursuant to the order impugned herein. The said act amounts to acceptance of the award. The petitioner having accepted the award and having acted upon the same, cannot maintain the instant writ petition, whereunder he seeks to impugne the very same award, the implementation and enforcement of which has been prayed before the jurisdictional court and which resulted in filing of the writ petition registered as W.P.No.17030/2017 by the employer-
Corporation. The said writ petition is preferred to quash the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner – respondent No.2 therein. In that view of the matter, applications – IA-1/2015 & IA-1/2017 will not survive for consideration in matters preferred invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applications are superfluous and are accordingly rejected.
4. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner having accepted the award cannot approbate and reprobate by seeking different reliefs in different forums. Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR