Writ Petition No. 42843 of 2015 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 42843 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI D N NANDAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI DORAISWAMY, R/A NO 80/1, 5TH CROSS, BANK AVENUE, BABUSABPALYA, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: 1. INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD., (A GOVT. OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) SCOPE COMPLEX, CORE-8, 6TH FLOOR, NO.7, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHAIR PERSON AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. BHARAT HOTELS LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BARAKHAMA LANE, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL GRAND ASHOK/ THE LALITH ASHOK, KUMARA KRUPA, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE-560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI T A KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 [PH]; SRI K PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE RECORDS COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. LEGAL:HR:14/7940 DATED 24.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-1 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K, TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the communication bearing No.Legal:HR:14/7940 dated 24.07.2014 and to direct the respondent No.1 to extend the benefit of pay scale and other emoluments to which he is entitled to, having regard to the terms of agreement between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the order dated 28.12.2001 passed by this Court in W.P.No.42641 - 42680/2014. He has also sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay all terminal benefits by extending pay scale and other emoluments on par with pay scales and other emoluments prevalent in the respondent No.1/corporation pursuant to the agreement and the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.42641-42680/2001 by considering his representations dated 28.05.2014, notice dated - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 17.07.2014, letter dated 26.08.2014 and notice dated 15.09.2014. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was selected as JET/KET in the respondent No.1/Corporation on 13.08.1987. During the year 2000 - 2001, he was granted promotion as a Deputy Manager, Head Office in F & B service department, Hotel Ashok, Bangalore under the Career Development Scheme. He contends that pursuant to policy of disinvestment in public sector undertakings by the Government of India, it recommended the disinvestment of respondent No.1. Consequently, the board of directors of respondent No.1 passed resolutions to take appropriate steps to demerge some of their hotel properties, so as to contribute, further and fulfill the decision of Government of India and to achieve the goal of disinvestment. As a result of the said programme, the respondent No.1 entered into an arrangement to lease out its hotel namely, Hotel Ashok in favour of respondent No.2. The scheme was challenged by the employees of Hotel Ashok and other employees union in W.P.No.42641-680/2001 connected with 43871-872/2001 challenging certain clauses contained in agreement. The writ petition was disposed off in terms of an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 order dated 28.12.2001. Pursuant to a settlement arrived at between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 14.10.2013 and he was relieved from duties on 13.11.2013. The respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to furnish the office orders issued by respondent No.1 for fixing his pay and allowances and consequent to which, the petitioner furnished details. The petitioner contends that after relieving his services, his accounts were not settled, which compelled the petitioner to make repeated representations. Despite several representations, the respondent No.1 did not make any settlement. On the contrary, it sent a reply through its advocate on 24.07.2014 declining to consider the request of the petitioner, in view of the understanding entered into between it and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner thereafter pursued the matter with the respondent No.1 by sending a letter dated 26.08.2014 which was again replied by the respondent No.3 on 12.09.2014 indicating that they had deposited the amount due to the petitioner in his account at Axis bank. The petitioner, not satisfied with the same, issued another notice dated 15.09.2014 calling upon the respondents - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 to furnish a detailed statement containing all the amounts due to him. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the reply issued by the respondent No.1 and has sought for consequential directions as stated above. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the respondent No.1 was bound to furnish the details of all the amounts payable to him. 4. (i) The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed its statement of objections contending that as per the scheme of disinvestment, the respondent No.1 had transferred Hotel Ashok to the respondent No.2. As per the understanding, the respondent No.2 took over charge of respondent No.3 for a period of 30 years. As per Article 13 of the agreement, the respondent No.2 had agreed to continue the services of regular employees of respondent No.3 on the same terms and conditions and in Clause 13(1)(iii) of the agreement, the respondent No.2 had agreed to provide all benefits required to be statutorily given to all the employees. It therefore, contends that it has no liability whatsoever to the petitioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 (ii) It did admit that the employees of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 had challenged disinvestment scheme in W.P.No.42641-680/2001 which was dismissed and therefore contends that the petitioner can have no grievance against the respondent No.1 relating to the scheme. It also claimed that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a reply issued to the notice sent by the petitioner through his advocate, cannot be challenged and therefore, the writ petition is misconceived. It further contended that as part of disinvestment programme, the respondent No.1 had given an option to all his employees either to continue their service in respondent No.2 or seek for voluntary retirement. The petitioner had opted for continuation of his service and therefore, the terms and conditions entered into between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is binding on the petitioner. 5. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also filed a statement of objections contending that as per the disinvestment scheme, they took over Hotel Ashok along with its business. It claimed that many of the employees of respondent No.1 took voluntary retirement and many of them have submitted resignation. It however contended that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 petitioner was continued in service from the date of the lease cum management agreement dated 29.11.2001. It contended that the respondent No.3 accepted the resignation submitted by the petitioner and he was relieved of his duties on 13.11.2013 and he ceased to be an employee of respondent No.1 with effect from 29.11.2001 and became the employee of respondent Nos.2 and 3 till he resigned on 14.10.2013. They claimed that the petitioner was paid all the terminal benefits by crediting it into his accounts at Axis bank. Therefore, they contended that the petitioner has no right to make any claim against respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 reiterated the contentions made in the statement of objections. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It is not in dispute that there was a disinvestment scheme, in terms of which, the hotel of respondent No.1 namely Hotel Ashok was taken over by the respondent No.2 for - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 management. It is not in dispute that as per the terms of the scheme, the petitioner continued in service of respondent No.2. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the petitioner continued in employment of respondent No.2 until he submitted his resignation in the year 2013. Therefore, the petitioner was not well advised to cause a notice to respondent No.1 demanding statement of amounts payable to him. The petitioner must have been cautious while opting to continue in services of the respondent No.2. If the petitioner is laying any claim to any entitlement to which he was entitled when he was in service of respondent No.2, the remedy to the petitioner is not to file a writ petition, as the respondent No.2 is neither a State nor an instrumentality of State or any other authority amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the proper remedy was to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of his claim. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to espouse his cause and claim the benefits that he is lawfully entitled. If a civil suit is filed, the time consumed in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:9104 WP No. 42843 of 2015 pursuing this writ petition shall be deducted while calculating the limitation applicable to a suit. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51