IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 4th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL No.2181 /2015 (CS – RES) BETWEEN:
Sri Devadas Shetty Son of Late Babu Shetty Aged about 44 years Residing at Hakardi House Kudambettu Village Bantwal Taluk D K District – 574 219. … Appellant (By Sri Prasanna V R, Advocate) AND:
1. The Asst. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Mangalore Sub – Division Mangalore, D K District – 575 001.
2. Vamadapadavu Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vamadapadavu, Bantwal Taluk D K District – 574 211 Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. ..Respondents (By Sri Lakshminarayana, AGA, for R1, Sri K Shrihari, Advocate for R2) This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in WP No.47194/2014 dated 5.6.2015.
This writ appeal having been heard and reserved on 13.11.2019 for orders and coming on for pronouncement of orders, this day HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR J, delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.6.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.47194/2014 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. Appellant claiming that he has rendered service with the 2nd respondent from 2003 till 2009, and having worked for more than 240 days in a year raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short `Act’) before the 1st respondent alleging that he has been refused employment illegally by the 2nd respondent.
3. The 1st respondent considering the materials on record rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that appellant has failed to establish that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year and also there was no necessity for initiating disciplinary action before dispensing with the services. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 1st respondent, appellant herein filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short `Tribunal’) in Appeal No.208/2013. The Tribunal by order dated 21.3.2014 dismissed the appeal. Appellant herein questioning the orders passed by the 1st and 2nd respondents filed WP No.47194/2014. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders to warrant interference. Hence, this appeal by the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsels for parties.
5. Appellant is not in a position to establish that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year except referring to the receipt, which is produced as Annexure-E to the writ petition. The said receipt no way discloses that he has worked for more than 240 days in a year. Further, the receipt discloses that the appellant was appointed on contract basis. The appellant has not produced any material to establish that he is entitled to be continued in service as a permanent employee. Therefore, we find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal and does not call for an interference. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and appropriate.
Accordingly, writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.