IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3728 OF 2013 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DRY LAND DEVELOPMENT BOARD, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571 301.
3. THE DISTRICT WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MYSURU AND KODAGU DISTRICT, MYSURU-571 301.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) AND:
SRI M.R. NATARAJU SON OF RACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, (FOREST DEPARTMENT), MELLAHALLI, VARUNA HOBLI, HAROHALLI POST, MYSURU-570 010.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI VIGNESHWAR S. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.45799 OF 2011 (L-TER) BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 7-8-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.45799 of 2011, the petitioner –State have filed this appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge was not right in ordering a lumpsum amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent. That the same is disproportionate.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent is absent.
4. On hearing learned counsel, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge. The reasons assigned are just and proper. However, we are of the view that a direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement and back wages in full and final settlement of the respondent may not be appropriate.
5. The learned Government Advocate submits that the respondent was only a daily wager. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded as lumpsum compensation is far too excessive. Therefore, we deem it just and appropriate to reduce it to Rs.1,00,000/-. We are of the view that the nature of the work rendered by the respondent is that of a daily wager and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
1) The order dated 7-8-2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.45799 of 2011 is modified to the extent of payment of compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
2) The amount has since been deposited before this Court, Registry to return half of the amount to the appellants and half to the respondent.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-