THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC v. SHRI. MOHAMMAD JAFAR

SMT. SHAKNTALA W/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O AT. POST. NAGANOOR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM-590001.

2. SMT. TANVI D/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI MARRIED TO SAGAR TAMMDADDI, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. AT. POST. NAGANOOR, TQ. GOKAK AND DIST. BELGAUM-590001.

3. KUMARI. RAMMAY D/O. APPASAHEB JIRALI AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. NILL, R/O. AT. POST. NAGANOOR, TQ. GOKAK AND DIST. BELGAUM-590001. (PETITIONER DIED ON 17-01-2023 HENCE WA IS FILED AGAINST HIS LEGAL HEIRS) (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 SERVED) …APPELLANT …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.79363/2013 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO.100524/2024: BETWEEN: SMT. SHEHNAZ W/O. SHIRAZ GUNAKI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. SECTOR NO.7, H.NO.1414, ANJANEYA NAGAR, VENTAMURI COLONY, - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 …APPELLANT DIST. BELAGAVI-590002. (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580030. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, PASS AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 103220/2021 (L-KSRTC) DATED. 8.09.2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO.100514 OF 2024: BETWEEN:

1. THE CEO/MANAGING DIRECTOR, J.S.W. SEVERFIELD STRUCTURE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT OFFICE 07-08, B WING, GROUND FLOOR, ART GUILD HOUSE, PHOENIX MARKET CITY, LBS MARG, KURLA (W), MUMBAI-400070.

2. THE CEO / MANAGING DIRECTOR, J.S.W SEVERFIELD STRUCTURE LIMITED, ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VIDYANAGAR, TORANAGALLU, TQ. SANDUR, DIST. BALLARI-583123 (BY SRI. SRINIVASAN RAGHAVAN SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SHIVARAJ C. BELLAKKI, ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: SHRI. BELALUDDIN KHAN S/O. MANIRUDDIN KHAN, - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.111, A, 30TH WARD, 3RD CROSS, KUVEMPU NAGAR, CANTONMENT, DISTRICT. BALLARI-583104. (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23 JULY 2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.102486/2024 (L-TER) AND GRANT COSTS OF THE APPEAL. IN WA 100374 OF 2024: BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC GADAG DIVISION REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, THE PETITIONER IS NOW REP BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030. (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: …APPELLANT SHRI. YELLAPPA S/O. RAMMAPPA TIRAKANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KANKIKOPPA, TAL. NARAGUNDA, DIST. GADAG. (BY SMT. NIRMALA B.G., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07/03/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO. 105369/2022 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN WA NO.100224 OF 2018: BETWEEN: NORTH WEST ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, THE APPELLANT IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE (NOC NOT OBTAINED)) AND: HUSSAINSAB S/O. AMMENSAB NADAF AGED ABOUT: 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O. A.Y.NADAF, RETIRED ASO, SHIVAPUTRAPPA DUNDAPPA SATTEPPANAVAR, BEHIND KAMAT TRANSPORTS, AT: SIGEKERI CROSS, POST: SIGEKERI, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT. (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/03/2017 PASSED IN W.P.NO.63683/2010 (L-KSRTC) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) In all these appeals, the parties have challenged the awards passed by the Labour Court by filing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, these intra-court appeals are filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short).

2. Learned counsel for the respondents herein, raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the intra-Court appeals, has contended that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.497/2022 in the case of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited v. Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha1 decided on

29.06.2022 has held that the intra-Court appeal is not maintainable. The said order has been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) 012658/2022 Diary No.20694/2022 and no interim order is granted. He further 1 AIR ONLINE 2022 KAR 4396 - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 contended that, following the judgment of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100230/2023 decided on

12.04.2023 has dismissed the appeal. That order has been challenged before the Apex Court. SLP is also dismissed. He contended that, yet another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100224/2023, following the judgment of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), by order dated 15.07.2024, has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.403/2023 wherein intra-court appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeals.

3. Per contra, Sri. Srinivasan Raghavan, senior counsel and Smt. Veena Hegde, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants have contended that, this Court in the case of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), has not considered the larger Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tammanna and others v. Miss Renuka and - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 Others2 wherein it is held that, intra-court appeal is maintainable. This has not been brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. They further contended that even the co-ordinate bench in W.A. No.200116/2016 disposed of on

02.07.2019 has held that, intra-court appeal is maintainable. This has not been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra). They further contended that even though the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023 dated 15.03.2024 arising out of W.A. No.100230/2023 has not dismissed the SLP on merits and no leave has been granted. Therefore, the same is not binding on this Court. They further contended that the Principal Bench of this Court in W.A. No.399/2019 by order dated 01.08.2022 has admitted the appeal and is pending consideration. They have also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Limited (now known as Khoday India Limited) and others v. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare 2 ILR 2009 KAR 1207; - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 Karkhane Limited, Kollegal3. They have also referred to the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WA No.100006/2022 disposed of on 27.08.2024. Thus, they contended that, intra-court appeals filed under Section 4 of the Act is maintainable.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. All the writ petitions are filed against the awards passed by the labour Court and against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, these intra-Court appeals have been filed under Section 4 of the Act. A Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra) decided on 29.06.2022 has held that any writ petition filed challenging the award of Labour Court must be held as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and intra-court appeal is not maintainable. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below: 3 (2019) 4 SCC 376 - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 “ 6. In order to consider the said issue, it is necessary to consider Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).

4. Appeals from decisions of a single Judge of the High Court - An appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to an be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court." Section 4 of the Act provides for appeals from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a Single Judge in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court. The definition of 'original jurisdiction' in the Act is not defined. In the absence of definition, we place reliance upon the Black's Law dictionary with a view to interpret the phrase 'original jurisdiction' which is found in Section 4 of the Act. As per Black's Law Dictionary 'original jurisdiction' is :- 'Jurisdiction in the first instance'

7. Admittedly, the writ petition is filed by the appellant challenging the award/order passed by the Labour Court, Bengaluru. In catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court culled out the principles governing the difference between the 'writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India' and the 'supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India'. It is no longer res integra that it is open to the Court while dealing with the petition filed under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution or Intra Court Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court's Act 1961 arising from the judgment in which the - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 petition could determine whether the facts justify the party in filing the petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution and further that nomenclature is of no consequence and it is the nature of relief sought and controversy involved which determines as to which Article, whether 226 or 227 of Constitution of India is applicable.

8. Whether a Labour Court is only a court subordinate to High Court or it is treated as a Civil Court is a germane issue to be dealt in this case so as to find out whether the petition filed before the learned Single Judge can be treated to be one under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8.1. Article *217 of the Constitution of India deals with appointment and condition of office of the Judges of a High Court. The word expression 'judicial office' used in Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India must be interpreted in consonance with the scheme of Chapter V & VI of Part VI of the Constitution. It means the person who exercise only judicial functions, determines, causes inter parties and renders decisions in a judicial capacity. He must belong to the judicial service which as a class is free from executive control and is disciplined to uphold the dignity, integrity and independence of the judiciary. Going by these tests laid down so as to what constitutes judicial service under Article 236 of the Constitution. The Labour Court judge can be held to belong to judicial service. The Labour Court have also been subject to the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018

8.2 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Labour Law Practitioners' Assn.4 has held in paragraph 20 as follows : "20. The constitutional scheme under Chapter V of Part VI dealing with the High Courts and Chapter VI of Part VI dealing with the subordinate courts shows a clear anxiety on the part of the framers of the Constitution preserve promote independence of the judiciary from the executive. Thus Article 233 which deals with appointment of District Judges requires that such appointments shall be made by the Governor of the State in consultation with the High Court. Article 233(2) has been interpreted as prescribing that "a person in the service of the Union or the State" can refer only to a person in the judicial service of the Union or the State. Article 234 which deals with recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial service requires that their appointments can be made only in accordance with the Rules framed by the Governor of the State after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court. Article 235 provides that the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto shall be vested in the High Court; and Article 236 defines the expression "District Judge" extensively as covering judges of a City Civil Court etc. as earlier set out, and 4 (1998) 2 SCC 688 *corrected vide court order dated 01.07.2022 - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 the expression "judicial service" as meaning a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of the District Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge. Therefore, bearing in mind the principle of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, judicial service contemplates a HCJ & MSM,J of 2021 service exclusively of judicial posts in which there will be a hierarchy headed by a District Judge. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the persons presiding over Industrial and Labour Courts would constitute a judicial service so defined. Therefore, the recruitment of Labour Court judges is required to be in accordance with Article 234 of Constitution." (emphasis supplied)

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Chabbi Nath and Others5 observed that a writ petition can lie only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, orders from the Tribunals can be regarded for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution. Whether the learned Single Judge has exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 or under Article 227 or both would depend upon the various aspects. There can be orders passed by the learned Single Judge which can be construed as an order under both Articles in a composite manner, or can co-exist and coincide. It was reiterated that it would depend upon the nature and character of the order and it will be the obligation of the 5 (2015) 5 SCC 423 - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 Division Bench hearing the intra court appeal to discern and decide whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution or both. The Bench would also require to scrutinise whether the facts of the case justifies the assertion made in the petition to invoke the jurisdiction under both the Articles and the relief prayed on that foundation.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Caparo Engineering India Ltd. vs. Ummed Singh Lodhi And Anr.6 held in paragraph 7.9 as follows : "7.9 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge of the High Court wrongly treated the petition(s) under Article 227 and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have treated the petition(s) under Article 226, therefore, the writ appeal before the learned Single Judge would have been maintainable, is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that before the learned Single Judge in the cause title specifically Article 227 has been mentioned. Even in prayer clause, no writ of certiorari is sought. The prayer is simply to quash and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court and, therefore, in the fact situation, the Division Bench has rightly dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable. Be that it may, even for the sake of submission, assuming that we accept the submission that the petition before the learned Single Judge ought to have been treated as under 6 Civil Appeal Nos.5829-5830 of 2021 disposed of on 26.10.2021 - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 Article 226 and writ appeal would have been maintainable, in the facts and circumstances of the case and instead of remanding the matter to the Division Bench to decide the same afresh, we, ourselves, have decided the entire controversy/issues on merits considering the fact that the order of transfer 2015 that most the employees have by now retired or they are about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation and that it is stated that they are not paid the salaries since 2015. Therefore, we, ourselves, have decided the entire issues on merits." (emphasis supplied)

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kiran Devi vs. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board and Others7 held that "therefore the petition styled as one under Article 226 would not bar the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under the Act and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High Court to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of determination of any dispute by the Tribunals is reserved with the High Court. The nomenclature of the proceedings as a petition under Article 226 or a petition under Article 227 is wholly inconsequential and immaterial.

12. In the instant case, the Labour Court, Bengaluru passed an award in favour of the respondent which was assailed before the learned Single Judge invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition filed by the petitioner must be held as one under 7 (2021) SCC online SC 280 - AIR 2021 SC 1775 - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 Article 227 of the Constitution of India being a challenge to the judicial order of the Labour Court.

13. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also facts of the present case, without going into the merits of the appeal, we are thus satisfied that the writ petition being preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the Labour Court Bengaluru, the present writ appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge which is an intra court appeal is not maintainable.” This order has been challenged before the Apex Court in SLP No.012658/2022. There is no stay of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra).

8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court W.A.No.403/2023 disposed on 09.10.2023 W.A.No.1614/2023 disposed of on 19.03.2024 in respect of the matter arising out of award passed by industrial Tribunal, following the Full Bench judgment in case of Thamanna’s case (supra) held that the intra court appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018

9. The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Sadarangani and another v. Union of India and others8 has held as follows: “29. As was indicated in Harbhajan Singh case, the pendency of a reference to a larger Bench, does not mean that all other proceedings involving the same issue would remain stayed till a decision was rendered in the reference. The reference made in Gain Singh case need not, therefore, detain us. Till such time as the decisions cited at the Bar are not modified or altered in any way, they continue to hold the field.” Further, it is to be noted that, the Apex Court has not stayed the order passed by this Court in the case of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra). The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others9 has held that, an earlier decision may seem to be incorrect to a Bench of a coordinate jurisdiction considering the question later, on the ground that a possible aspect of the matter was not considered or not raised before the Court or more 8 (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 321 9 (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018 aspects should have been gone into by the Court deciding the matter earlier but it would not be a reason to say that the decision was rendered per incuriam and liable to be ignored. The earlier judgment may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on the later Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. The easy course of saying that earlier decision was rendered per incuriam is not permissible and the matter will have to be resolved only in two ways- either to follow the earlier decision or refer the matter to a larger Bench to examine the issue.

10. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100230/2023 placing reliance on The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra) has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The said judgment was taken to Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP(Civil) Diary No.32290/2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 15.03.2024 passed the following order: “ We see no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned orders.” - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16587-DB WA No. 100321/2024 C/W WA No. 100194/2024, WA No. 100014/ 2024, WA No. 100524/2024, WA No. 100514/2024, WA No. 100374/2024, WA No. 100224/2018

11. Another co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.100224/2023 and also W.A.No.929/2013 and connected matters following the judgment of The Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Limited (supra), has dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

12. In view of the above, following the Co-ordinate Bench judgments, all these intra-Court appeals filed under Section 4 of the Act are dismissed as not maintainable. As a consequence, pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE