IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.6897 OF 2013 (L-PG) BETWEEN:
SRI M. SANNANAYAKA SON OF LATE MALESH NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, HAMPAPURA, KRISHNARAJANAGARA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
(BY SRI GOVINDARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.5, HARANGI DISTRIBUTION SUB DIVISION, KRISHNARAJANAGARA, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 602.
... APPELLANT 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR C.N.N.L. CAUVERY BHAVAN COMPLEX, GOKULAM 4TH STAGE, MYSURU-571 602.
3. THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 002.
4. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU-570 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) 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.33612 OF 2012 DATED 08.10.2013 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2013, in Writ Petition No.33612 of 2012, respondent No.3 therein has filed the instant appeal.
2. The primary contention of the appellant is that the order of the learned Single Judge was based on the fact that the appellant herein was appointed by the State and therefore he was under the services of the State. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was not under the services of the State, but was under the services of a Corporation viz., Cauvery Neeravari Nigam Limited. That the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and hence should be considered herein.
3. It is therefore pleaded by the learned counsel that he may be permitted to move the learned Single Judge in a review petition and bring these facts to his notice. So far as this contention is concerned, we do not find it appropriate to opine on the same. If the appellant has a liberty in law, he is entitled to file such a petition. Suffice to hold that, it is highly improper for the Appellate Court to consider contentions for the first time.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find it appropriate to accept the contention of the appellant for the first time before the appellate court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is at liberty to pursue such remedies as available to him in law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-