DIST. BELAGAVI-591123 v. (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI MAHANTESH S/O MARIYAPPA HADIMANI AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. NILL, RES. #134/B, ANJANEYA NILAY, ANJANEY NAGAR, AT POST. RAMADURGA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT JAGADISH T R JAGADISH T R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08/12/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.105311/2019 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

01.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 2 - WA NO.100224/2023 JUDGMENT This intra-Court appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against order dated

8.12.2022 passed in WP No.105311/2019, whereby writ petition filed by respondent herein is allowed modifying the Labour Court award dated 31.8.2018 in KID No.54/2017 directing the appellant herein to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, by withholding three annual increments cumulatively, without any back wages.

The parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge. The appellant herein was the respondent and the respondent herein was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge.

The petitioner approached this Court questioning the award passed by the Labour Court dated 31.8.2018 in KID No.54/2017, wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of dismissal. The Labour Court under award dated 31.8.2018 rejected the claim petition. In the above writ petition, the learned Single Judge, on the ground that dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charge in the absence of any conclusive proof that the workman had collected the fare after issuing an old ticket, set-aside the order of dismissal and - 3 - WA NO.100224/2023 directed the respondent/Corporation to reinstate the workman into service, without any back wages, by withholding three annual increments cumulatively with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, respondent/Corporation is in appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/workman raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. Learned counsel Sri. Ravi Hegde places reliance on decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in City Municipal Council, Ilka Vs. Shri. Mahantesh S/o Basanna Korawar & Others1, which is affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023, dated 15.03.2024.

Learned counsel Smt. Veena Hegde appellant/Corporation vehemently opposes the same and submits that writ appeal would be maintainable against order of learned Single Judge, wherein the award of Labour Court is challenged. Learned counsel submits that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100224/2023 by order dated

11.04.2023 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable placing reliance on decision of this Court in Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd., Bangalore Vs. Bharat Fritz Werner 1 WA No.100230/2023, dated 12.04.2023 - 4 - WA NO.100224/2023 Karmika Sangha, Bangalore2. She submits that SLP against the said judgment is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel further submits that review was filed against the order dated 11.04.2023 in WA No.100224/2023 and in the review, co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the review petition and recalled its order dated 11.04.2023 passed in the said writ appeal. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the judgment passed in Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha (supra) has not attained finality, which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, prays to reject the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/workman and to entertain the writ appeal.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100230/2023 placing reliance on decision in Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha (supra) held that intra-Court appeal challenging the order of learned Single Judge arising out of an award passed by the Labour Court is not maintainable. The said judgment was taken up to Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 15.3.2024 passed the following order: 2 AIR Online 2022 KAR 4396 - 5 - WA NO.100224/2023 “We see no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned orders…...”

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP has categorically observed that no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the impugned order. When the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court, which is subsequent to order in the review dated

19.02.2024 in RP No.100058/2023, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation. By following the decision of co- ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100230/2023, dated

12.04.2023 and order dated 15.03.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No.32290/2023, we decline to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JTR CT:VP