IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.694-698/2015 (S, RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR. RAVICHANDRA MANKANI S/O TIPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.37/1, NEAR POWER CONTROLLER, 4TH CROSS, DODDAGOWDANAPALYA, BANGALORE-61.
2. MR. P.SEENIVASAN S/O G.PERUMAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, C/O SHANOOB I.P., NO. 212, BDA LAYOUT, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-11.
3. MUHAMMED SALA KOYATHODUKAYIL S/O UMMER KOYA K.T., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. MR. GOPI S/O DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 5. MRS. SAJEESHMA K.S D/O SATHYENDRAN K., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT C/O SHANOOB I.P., NO. 212, BDA LAYOUT, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-11.
(BY SMT D.MANJULA, ADV., FOR SRI L.SRINIVASA BABU, ADV.,) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
2. VICE CHANCELLOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, PGIMSR AND MODEL HOSPITAL, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT M.P.GEETHADEVI, ADV., FOR R2 & R3 V/O DT.10.08.2016 PETITON STAND DISMISSED AS AGAINST R1) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE DUTY REPORT IN PURSUANCE OF THE ANNEXURES-C, C1 TO C4 DT.28.6.2013 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY THE ARREARS OF SALARY FROM THE DATE OF OFFER LETTER TILL THEY HAVE BEEN POSTED FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE PLACE OF WORK.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has filed a statement of objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioners have not been appointed to the post of Dental Technician (Mechanical) in the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, the dispute should be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioners have an alternative remedy. Hence, the present petitions are not maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. To this statement of objections, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall approach the learned Tribunal. However, as the petitioners may be hit by limitation, this Court should direct the learned Tribunal to condone the delay in filing of the original Application.
3. Undoubtedly, the petitioners should have approached the learned Tribunal before coming to this Court. Since, the petitioners have an efficacious and alternative remedy, they should have taken recourse to the same. Hence, the present writ petitions are not maintainable. Thus, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
4. Considering the above fact, the petitioners shall be free to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the learned Tribunal; the learned Tribunal is directed to consider the said application filed by the petitioners sympathetically.
Sd/- JUDGE PB