IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR WRIT PETITION NO.12987 OF 2016 (L-RES) BETWEEN SRI D.S.BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O.LATE SHANKARAPPA WORKING AS WATCHMAN OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.1 HRBHLC DIVISION, GORUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR FOR SRI S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATES) AND 1. THE MANAGER DIRECTOR KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ENTERPRISES) OFFICE AT SURFACE WATER DATA CENTRE 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED NO.1, HRBHLC DIVISION, GORUR HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.R.C.RAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SALARY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 23.07.2007 TO 29.04.2010 AS REQUESTED BY THE PETITIONER IN HIS WRITTEN REPRESENTATION DATED 14.12.2015 (ANNEXURE-L) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE LETTER DATED 05.03.2011 (ANNEXURE-K) WRITTEN BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary for the period from 23.07.2007 to 29.04.2010 as per the petitioner’s representation dated 14.12.2015 submitted before the second respondent vide Annexure-L in the background of the letter dated 05.03.2011 written by the Chief Engineer to the first respondent vide Annexure-K and such other appropriate reliefs.
3. The factual matrix of this petition is as under:
The petitioner herein was initially appointed by the respondents as a watchman on daily wage basis on 22.02.1984. Subsequently, his services were continued but he has been terminated from service on 30.01.1990 in violation of the provisions as contemplated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The legality of the order of termination was assailed by the petitioner by raising an industrial dispute before the competent Labour Court at Chikkamgaluru in ID.No.12/1997. But the said proceedings has been rejected on 13.03.2001. Against that order passed by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition in WP.No.45615/2003 and this Court by its order dated 23.07.2007 has allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the order of the Labour Court with a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service without continuity of service and without backwages. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondents have filed SLP (Civil) No.2596/2009 before the Supreme Court and the same has been dismissed on 11.11.2010. Thereafter, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to approach the division office regarding his reinstatement on 27.04.2010 and the petitioner has approached the second respondent and given duty report on 30.04.2010 and the respondent has posted the petitioner as a Phone call attendant and so also to look after the xerox work. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the second respondent on 05.05.2010 with a request to pay the salary for the period from 23.07.2007 to 29.04.2010 and the same was forwarded by the Chief Engineer to the first respondent on 05.03.2011 for suitable directions and again the petitioner has submitted a fresh representation dated 14.12.2015 to the second respondent with a request to pay the full salary for the aforesaid period. Despite the respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
Keeping in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the grounds urged in this petition as stated supra, it is appropriate to proceed to pass the following order:
The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation dated 14.12.2015 (Annexure-L) submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE LB