High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shaheena Parveen vs Town Municipal Council Kadur on 24 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shaheena Parveen vs Town Municipal Council Kadur on 24 March, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
nu-1-.

IN THE HIGH COURT CF KEETTRTfiK?'s. ET' 

nmmnn mars THE 24" DAY 03 Hanan, zoqgfifffifv

BEFORE

rum HflN*BLE MR.JU3TICE SEEHRfiH7fi §§i§%°.f.' %

v.2. no. 10951 or 2oo6«jifTfini& -i« 'VkA

Smt. Bhahaena Parveen,

Wfa Attab A11 Parveen,f 1

Aged abaut 35 years,   '..: _
Gem: Eannada Tvn*m*; ..*.'-V:"

-4-J3-..----.= ~-

Tuwn Hunicipal~Q¢unci1,_f V __
Kadur, Chiim§hqaiara'Ei5t._ a ";i.BETITIGHER

£E?:S3i§}R;CgxfifiE$3AJ;}ADVOCAEEJ
ENE : 1 T A .

1.

Tmwn flfinicipa1″fiGfifi¢il}
Radar, ‘g -V g 2,».

E33. by its hia£ Dfflicar.

g2. fieputy.EoKflaszi¢n£r;

x_.chixmgnga;o:a.

‘ ‘. 3..BifécED£Ifif the Municipal

Adminiatfiation,
vishvaghwggaigh Tower,

.y finBanqaiure. …RE5?0NDENT$

‘~gf’;fi2 sax. Jnamnnmsn uunnner, GOVT. ADvncnTfi)

This firit Petition ia filed unde;
Articlea 226 and 22? vf the Constitution oft
Inia, praying to qnash the award éatafiik
lflioaazeflé made in I=D=A= Hg.42!155B yg§§éd§hy*,”t
thm nistrict Judge and Presiding 9ffic9r{i–”

Tinfinatrial Tribunal. Chikmagalur at fiafiafiura

‘F’, being arbitrary, erronaéfls ‘and _against.”»
the law; direct the reapondsnta tn rGinstat$x,t
tbs petitioner into service Hwith. full- back. *
wagea and continuity ef service and al365qth§x
cansaqusntial sarvice benefiits. ‘– K *:””

This Writ Patition”‘flC§fling i’on~t for
Preliminary Hearing in:’B? fixouy this day, the

Cmurt made the fioliuwing:-avf

an zone in I.D.A.

Na.42fl§Hfi= it “éailgdf it wétaation by the

Vi_cantinu¢fis»§érvice in a year and was illegal

i”i”términatad fram service in violativa of

itsafitiah zsuy of the 1.9. Act.

ViV, ta. In this regand, the petitioner raised a

dispute before the Laban: Court. The Labour
n

(.

Y?

REulyirg;s3″ 2;-n .£:h~u_V_V”r:i::::v;i1:1e:1ta at

in ‘ .n-rm-3’

A. ‘_
man ..i1*:ucusJ.y

X

31::

Court held that.» the ixerminntiean <93'; BB.rVi£:f3B

of the petitioner does not

amcmnt

J:'etr~sn-chment within the meaning of M

2 [no.5

of the I.D. Act. Th§"~Lahpu¢ "fi¢fir£.

ohaerved that, the a_gpc:-i111V:1rIa::11»".:'«V§~a':i':.-afi'3::<$fi'£;,i:az;1:uéa§:I.'~..A V'T'

EST:

Rlnlfllu

«L 1′.-c;a.:n¢c:!. t3eL=..-as:z1… . Q =;:_’_a”Ist_:;t_:i-:.mt-.2;
fifibtfiifféfi ‘fi1″_1é_fi, ;5>f_ac.t’*. _’v:h* patitiaiiar was

appointed j’.::;sVV’not: in dispute
a .nd it ‘cfi’a§uted that, aha worked
from 199$xfic_1saE5a§&§ga¢ camglatad 240 days.

E2-LW2. W”‘3; W-4

. hv

””’-.l

111′
133′

“‘€:…e

pass

f

fll

Ii1in_ir:t.ipa;l:”‘*«.,f3~:>im’i:i1, further aubmifztad fih ,

_th-aséw ‘£L:;g’3-L;.1A.«:i14cionB clearly damcanatzratzas that,
H ,3-et1:i–*’t::ionIaer was working continuously from
1998, fuarther once the petitioner has

_ ea1::aLt:~1ishIa~.d that. she had worked far 240 days

in e. yga;-.r she is entitled ‘Sex: 1:11

benefit under Ssctimi fiha Emir. ”

25-? Df

vpetiticnax Von_ ¢onfiractual basin.

.auhmiEt

I

further submitted that, diamisaal of

tag

patitionat is per 39 illegal and petitionaf iS k

entitled for reinstatement. back wagea*%hd»§II% “%

awnsaquantial benefits.

5. Learned Gavarnmnnt Adv9café_&ppea£i@§!f§#u

the naapnndenta aubmittad’Efi§t{ bf”fi§fi§l@tion

dated 02.12.1995 of

I
etxtiener “egg

V:

N

Ccuncil an_ita$@oraryEéénffiaéf”W’

cons01idatéd $g1§r§ af Ra}?5§!; per month and
aa per Ex,W¥§Tgn§.w«$Vandjfurther reualutions
ware passed. fiofitinfiiné” the sarviaea of the

It

mi
“W–1

ufihsfn
_,,-,

…. _ _1_

110

fll

pétfi-_i’G_i(§21~’$:”f..V’_WQEEV working war?

V gust andQit fins subject to the sanction of the

“” gfiet by tfie Gnvexnment.

Luanned. Govarnmant Advocate also relied

the doctxzrsenta produced haters the Labour:

Cmurt ahnwing that, the patitianer was nat a

4.1″.’ «,9.

_ _’r’_3’e.=.;r::n’.-:.~»«fi for which she was engged.

t: %r.’~.;:ac=L~a-:.r*T* app eintment

-5…

qualified to the post and there is a direction

by the G-ovaxnment not to contravene with”:

Racruitment Rule .

“.7. It is nut in dispute thaig.

_ Council is gcsvarned by’ the U

in the: matter of re-:ruitmai:i’i:.; _’I’hI:&”‘§:ei9a’:ol1V.if;tion
prmdumad at A:max1i;c.§f 1~.–%_v 02 .12.1995

«mi.

(1

I2

1r-u-wr 1:’

alearwj aha.-ea tmfi.-.t; the._¥;.et-iti lfimr”’–i&3;:.=

:-

Hi

can 1′:aLLt1p<:a3:.:u~3v_V hfifiifi G1'
c::a11sc:].ic1.ateVc;i..V.v"§'=.aa.§ggu= " niqf. «. Vper mt:-nth . AB
par Ex;.1i'2__ .iju clear that, the

1:: at it ianérf . 'avaitii " were ext ended for

vf1.11:1:11§;j.t" i._:J.e1:i.V<:/<:*..__ r':h1':"L same terms and conditions,

I{1i';1_it5j.ipalf"*«r;_o1irm'il has nu autihciz-fzitjr ta

and "'i'-11rt;'iie-.9; the aggp-ointment is on contract
"i':1;1e mnplarnyaa canmzut claim right to

_'_'g'a:i':_L 1:7i.3:':$1a: in the past much 1-gas beyond the

It is
it: 1-sill nvhize

WWII, an the catupiétién """'""'"*

pariafi. Evan othsrwiae alas, the post is not

a aanctimnad. The petitioner does not fifirfyfik

any lien or right aver the post.

3. Tha Labour Court ¢9ngifl££ififi = th§ ¢

circumstances, has foumdfthat}7tfie pafiififiénafiu

does nmt get any right to &1§im réifififiatémant
on any benefits out §f~tfia§a$ifi émp1oyment as

it dvas Ldfi within the

£3
13

t amvunt ta :et:@n¢h

,_ ,3

meaning D Séctibn Eicfii éfafiha”E.fi. Rafi.

1′”!

-:.1::« mt tin»: «é’fi_r–c3 §t’* .’ iilégality in the

award.

91. I’-Iancua, “–«.L’irm.i.esV -v__wA1t~..,1’_.”t<.jneatit3'.on fails and the

;"aamef£$;fliwmiafiéda–# ——–

"_VE&&rfiedVfi@flernment Advocate ia permitted

V to file Hsmfi of appearanca within four weeks

V ' * %.::-ii-om, toaagr.