IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.219 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH WRIT APPEAL NO.3453 OF 2016 (S-KSRTC) IN WRIT APPEAL NO.219 OF 2016: BETWEEN:
SRI A. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE DODDA ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DEPOT, KSRTC AND RESIDING AT NO.274/1, DESI PROVISION STORES, M.G. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101, KOLAR DIVISION.
(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, ... APPELLANT C.S.I. HOSPITAL ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29300 OF 2013 DATED 07.10.2013.
IN WRIT APPEAL NO.3453 OF 2016: BETWEEN:
SRI A. KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE DODDA ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS CONDUCTOR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DEPOT, KSRTC AND RESIDING AT NO.274/1, DESI PROVISION STORES, M.G. ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101, KOLAR DIVISION.
(BY SRI V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, C.S.I. HOSPITAL ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101.
(BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE REVIEW PETITION NO.141 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.29300 OF 2013 DATED 17.12.2015.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT There is a delay of 814 days in filing the appeal.
However, we have heard the learned counsels on merits.
2. The appellant seeks to question the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2013, passed in Writ Petition No.29300 of 2013, wherein the writ petition was dismissed. In an earlier round of litigation, the order passed by the Labour Court on I.A.4 of 2001, was challenged by the appellant, which concluded in the order dated 25.02.2009, passed in Writ Petition No.22948 of 2005. Therein, the order of the Labour Court was modified and the order of dismissal was set-aside. However, the petitioner was entitled for reinstatement, but would not be entitled for five increments, with cumulative effect and no backwages for the said period.
3. Thereafter, various proceedings have ensued.
Primarily, the entire litigation would pertain to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.22948 of 2005. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that continuity of the service, having not been specifically denied, the appellant is entitled for the same.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said issue was also considered in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. It was held at para-12 of the impugned order herein that the term ‘reinstatement’ cannot be taken to be consequential benefits or continuity of service. Therefore, considering the contentions advanced, we are of the view that it would be improper for us to interpret what was actually intended by the learned Single Judge in the order passed. The said order is sought to be interpreted either way by both learned counsels. Therefore, it would not be necessary for us to go into the issue of a proper interpretation of the order, especially, when the learned Single Judge in the present impugned order has opined with regard to the same.
5. Under these circumstances, we do not find any ground to entertain these appeals. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed on merits, as well as on delay, reserving liberty to the appellant to pursue such remedies as available in law. I.A.No.1 of 2016 is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
CT:SM