Ramachandrappa Devendrappa … vs Town Municipal Council … on 21 February, 2009

IN THE HIGH C9flRT OF KARNATAKQ

CERCUE? BXNCH fiT GULBRRGR

mawan THIS THE 21"'sAY er FEBRQAR? 2$§§ 

?RESENT:

Tag H$N'BLE MR. JGSTfCEy¥.Q§"SABH%$iTfl"~m"

Tag HON'BLE MR. JJ§?iCE g;sL5p§£HHA@§RE

wax? apPEgL_§g,2a51f9f.gag3f{§¥§§53

BETWEEQ:

3.

Ramachandrappa"Bevenarap§a Ba§iger,
Sim. Devendragga B&diger} j
Shrikantfi'Krishnaji_Hunagund,
S{Q;_Kzish§&ji*fiunagufié,

Aged abgut 4§.yea:$,

Vi§a§ak§mé$*infiu&hérayya fiiremath,

=xSf@. Endfidharayya'fii§emath,

" "aged abéut §2~yéa§$,

" Sadda§§a Cfiafinapya Endawar,
=$f0;xCnafiaa§pa Endawar,
RAgeé_abQu3 41 years,

 T§imma§pa Easappa Bandiwadar,

SfQL"Basa§pa Eandiwadaz,

' "fig§§ abaut 35 years,

V"Hfiufisesab Laéies& Muiimaai,

Sfia. Eafileaa Huiimani,



Sinca deceased gz L.Rs.:

6. Shhamsuddin, _
S/0. late Hunsesab Ladlesa M§iimani,y
figed about 25 years, V - 7

?. Kamaruddin, V..a ,
Sic. late Hunsesab Ladiesa_M§limén;y
Aged about 23 yaars, " é' '

8. Master Azaruddin, .« « -, . .
Sfo. late Hunsesab Lafliesa fialimfiai}.
Minor, 5 j""i' - " <
Rep. by natura3_gmardi3fii
Sharifa Begum, mo:héx,: '

9. Shabanfir 5 H a' _ V . , .V _ _ _
dfo. late Hunsésab'Lafilé53"MuIimani,

Aged ab0ut_2? yégrs; ', '
10.Heena Kausar,"xfgZ*_ ¢_ .
S/0. late Hun$esab Ladlesa Mulimani,
Minor, x . *-- R ,."g
Rep. By natural Guardian:
Sharifajfiegumgamdthér,
'Z1f£mbfeené} _
Q d/§a_iate,Hunsesab Ladlasa Mulimani,
  bv  
Rep} By natuzal guardian:
S§a:ifa Baggmg mother,

 fa§:;$&arif8VEfigum,
=,--,w¢¢, late Hunsasab Ladleaa Mulimani,

'*4_»%§ed"ab0ut 49 yaarfi, M %??ELLANTfS

_% .Lg5 to 1: are the chiidren and A12 is
'T"vuThé wife of iate Husafisab Mullmani anfi
'RVEE ta 12 are {fat Bazar Main Road, Maruti

 x 'm,fTem§l9, Muddebihai, Bija§§:.

{By Mf$.B.R.Pati2, V.S.Naik & Manjuia N.Kulkarni, fid¥s.}



AND:

Tewn Municipai Cauncii,
Muddebihai, V . , ,_ ._ as *A _ g
By its Chief Officer. 3 ,,A} :».m'-'RESP§NDE¥?i$s

§By Sri. Harshavardhan R.Mai;patii, Rdv.} .i.
This writ Appea1.is,§::éé"u§SgV4 of fiEe Karnataka High

Ceurt Act, praying to"aet éaide the Order passed in w.9.
NQ.3551/2361, dateé l2.07g200?;:' *'= *

This Writ Epfiaal fiomfifig Q5 is: Eihai Hearing, this day
Sabhahit J., déliyered thé fcllowifigr"

 %%%%     

Thi3 .app@aiV"is :iiem' by the respondents in W.P.

Ng,355:/gG0:;*u’be;ng V&§g:iev@d by the Order datad

,¢2,o7.2§a?; wherein_€he igarned singie Judge sf this Court

Baa @onfipmed,Ehe Judgment and Rward paased by the Labour

couét; gifiagurg in KID No.46f1§96 in Reference am.5a;2c@:,

dated 22.E§.2$S3 insafar as it raiateg ta reinstatement and

%é§ a3;de the Qrder pasged by th@ Laban: Ceurt in awaréing

SQ%% ba3k~wages. fieing aggrieved by the Gide: of tha

niaarfied singia Jfidge insofar as setting aside the Qrder of

u “@§yment 0f 50% backwwaqes, tfie workman i.e., the

M2»

V 3erviceS cfiglfi} fiat be terminated.

, réiastatemént waa gustified.

“x {b that extent,

respendeats in the writ patition have p:éfi§;§ed this
agpeal. V

2. The Labour Court, Bijapur, by J@§gfi§fit a§da$Q§;d
dated 22.11.2633 has set asidéi gfié’;6rfiég :¢a$%é@ By §fié
Managament and ordéreé re1Q3:atéme§t wifh_§G%nb%éE;w§Qes.
Being’ aggrieved’ by’ the samé; “the kfirfifivfiegifiififi has baen
fiied[ by th@ Tewn Mfixgcipal’ C§fihQil, ‘Mud§3bihal. Tfie
learned single Judge éfter cé%$i%§%;fifi the contentions of

the learned c0unaél_appéé%ifigff§:xthe,§arties has held that

in View sf théWfa¢t_thé?_th¢ respondents have served for
2&8 days ‘anéé haying< fegaffi to the fiatura of the work

@erfwrm€%.bY $3? th@m afifi in View of the Labour Courfi haa

Qéfderefi fa; reinstafémént and the petitioner has alga maved

tha *Sévetnmefi: "fcr same posts to be approved, their
Tharefere, the

However, the iearned singié

»,uu§gé'h§ld that the workmen wmuid not be entitigd to 50%

hackhwafies as awarded by the Labour Cauxt as it is not mafia

ciéé: whether tfie wbrkmem had serving eisewhare or hat and
set agide the Award pasgeé by tha Laban:

Ceurt ordarimg paymant af $@% back wages aad confirming tha

\§w%-

Order of reinstatement. Being aggrieved o£m”:fi§.:Same, the
respsadents in W.P. N9.3531fEUG1 hav@_ QrefaxreduuEhis

appeal.

3. We have heaxd the iearaéd c0uhseg*a@pearinq’for
the appeilants and the learne&_cQun$é£,appéarinq £0: the

xéspendent.

4. The §ea%n§d $%%fi$éLt3§pQérQ§Q Egr the a?@Siiant$
submits thatf£§e @r§§§[§§w;§fiifiearned ginqie Judqa is not
justifi@d= in fi§é§%§nq’ §a§dé*wth% direction issued by the
Labour iégrt;Vv5r§é%ifi@<E§aymént oi 58% back~wag@$ having

c0niirm@d the Qrde; or fainstatement 0: th% app@Liants and

_:her@fQreg.theR®:der passed by th@ iearnea single Judge i3

Liabie to be.égt aside.

‘Aifi ra$fi§§§@, fihé learned. CG§fi38i app@a§:£g for the

4:e3p@§&§fi€a submits that the Brae: pfifififid. by th@ ieazaefi

‘*.*V n,L , . z–%é em
w. 3;ngie_Jufige 13 §§Stl§é3£é€4

5. We have given careful censideration ta tha

»u§Gfit@§tiQfi3 of the iaarned couasel appaarinq fer the

parfiiés and scrutinized tfie materiai an record.

\m~.

5. The matariai on record wouid cieariy snsfis that

the appellants were mat emfiieyed against the regfiia: pasta

and t§ey were appointed on daigy wagas and 3ifice»§§éy fi§da

pat in continnaua service OE Z40 d3ys_an§ tfiéi: ée;vi$@s~

couid mat have dispensed with. fhefi¢fi¢§é; {fie :i@é2fiad
fiingie Judge has caniirmed the firger bf reifi%fi§nemQht afifi
having xegard to the nature 0: e¢%lo§mQfit.éf:§heJéppeiiant$
herein and the fact that t$éfe fi§s3fiéEm%§e§ia£ to Shaw that
they are not gainfuliy emp;Q§e¢; %§e”l§§fi§$d single Judge

has set asid@=ti%_6:zé§tiOh_issuéfi by the Labour Court for
payment of 53% b3ck–w3ge3; ifi”v;éw Gf the decision Qf tha
H0n’ble Supreme fcurt in Umadevi Vs. Union of Inéia Cage,
it 15 we}; settled that the backwwages cannot ba claimed as

rigfitV $ndx’thé héckwwages C33 be awarded 0nl’ when the

.wG;kmafi”w&$&§r5U@d fifiat he was not gainfully empleyed and

in” the pre$eflt.¢¢as@, fiaving regard to thé nataxe of

“em§i¢ym@nt 05 “the appeilafits, the Qréer passad by the

°L iearfied_3in§le Judge setting agide the direction ifiaued by

“%:hé”Labodr Sour: ta pay 33% baCk–waqas does not suffer from

‘afiy_ifil@qality and does not call for iaterferemce in this

ifitra*sGurt appaai. we dc not fin§ any qaed qreuad to

\9~5>

take a diiieremt View in the matter. Ascordifigly we acid

that there is no merit in tnig appeai.;

fie appeai is d:3mi3séd.5_z

Ksm*