High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shobha vs Mahila Samakhya Karnataka on 24 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shobha vs Mahila Samakhya Karnataka on 24 October, 2008
Author: N.Kumar & Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
-3-

WA No.§¥§3'~3/2907
IN THE HIGH caum' mi' KARNATAKA 

CIRCUIT SENS-H AT G¥.}LBARCrA

DATED TPHS mg 2433 SAY GB' OCTOBER :"»:§t)ss..«T   

_ PRESENT   _
THE H{)N'BI.-E Mr.     
THE ;~:<3N'B1.E. Dr. J§3S'I'ICFA3_I£:Bf{Et§§fiI'H§§VA'f$A{v\:A
WRTI' APPEAL" 

BETWEEN:    . 

1. Smtshobha,     . I  
W] o..€'mJ11ku1:¥xar .P'a:id'av,b VL 
Aged abmit i:!L)=§ze;:~:r;*'5._, '--

(3923:  "fl "
R{0.N0.'.2g--60_4! 1;   
Near STBT Crass, _ V
Jagat, Guibarga. '

Smt.C-hirista 
-"'~5.3f6-fn*Jifi.i*§3mkar;"».. _____ 

{Q

 Agcd nahoigf'  ~j§5CaI£'S,

 flops'  V ._
R',I<3..¢(;"~f'!'x1"is:.tV§1'*.=a;t1' Ci'tI{):T!'_§',
Chitguppas Talxfiz,
V Hungu_11d§.- ~  A
'Dist:  V

.  cyfitéfmppa Helkfirc, 
.jé.'ig£*d about 44 years, ix,//'"



. Mzsfihaivar Begum,

. Smtfieeta D.K-rzzmsf _

,v SzI1t.R¢;1112{a, .,
   ..... 
1_Ag:::dA 4%) y€:,a1'§.:_. 

,_  Dhmwad'  'V 

'   -- .Sm.t.  "
 A 'W,!b.'Sha1'anappa Gaflzwad,
 Agcdabimt 44 years,

 '-«Dec; Salxayogiifi,
*  Aif. F7031". Yengunriza,

 "~.Ta1uk:A}aI1d, 
A " .. Dist: Gulbarga. V

WA Ns::«.9'E.39/ 1200?

Occ: Sabayogini,

Rf oifkam Jabagi,
Filterbcd Read,

¥'o:s.£: Atsihizzzgtmr,

'Taluk 8:. Dist: Cirlslharga.

W] o.Abc1ui Sukur,
Age: 37 years'
Occ: Sahayogiui,
R/o.H.No.7~995,
Maomiapnra,

Near Mijaguri,
cjuibarga,

W/o.Vi1:1od Kumar,  * '    ,
Aged 30 ycaxssi, _  _

R/o.Hous.e};:g31d';..V  3i.;._ , V

Late: ('§11ndapjj):aA    
Sfiisevaflfiigafi.  --«  '

Nehru Guisj,

Gulbarga.

1:::;:c:; Sa1:1a}:dgi_i3i," ----
N€ar'«LaxzE:.i:'?4,Va1ti§a'ai1 Temple,
Ravivar Path;  f_ 



 '(By S';-ri.i'.'.t.Ii:13.f.:;i.<{*1Lz,Ir1.':'1r, Adv.»

 147  Samakhya Kalnataka

WA 939.9%/2007

8. Smt,Th1'ppamma,
W / ofiitlarailappa,
Aged 49 yams,
Goo: Sahayogixii,
At Post Vcngunda,
Talukz Alaxld,
Dist: Guibarga.

Q. Smt.KaIavathi,
W] 0. Zarcppa,
Aged 49 years,
Doc: Sahayoghii,
At Post Vengtmda,
Taluk; Aland,
Dist: C}uibarga.. 

10. Smt.Ka11amma',~v"  ' ._ __ "  
W] o.Wharai1ap§3éi_i'é'i1éL=:1gé;--f'."  V'
"CC:   V  V  .,

At Posi:'?Y€1Lgu1;-da,  '
Taluk: Maud,   *
Dist: G1:133a.£"«ga4 .

11, Mrsfisther, -.
W] 0.4}R'aijL.';1z3:1a1","' .. _ M V
 -  skgczié?-"":'?~8; .3€'m:t"'=3- " ' ----- -~ "
v. "Of.i'C:' Sa}j.:§1yogi3gi,
* 9; :';.»HT. ¥aFc;.4--;i;:.-r3'i;*4,l :25 (158),
  
Naubad,  Aiand. ...APPELLANTS

   ;;¢[;53:, 22*" Main,

" 491 "1" Black, Jayanagar,  '



e/,,,.,fi*{' dated  It makes an interesting reading. H: recites
 the authpfities are hagspy to note the service mentality of the
 their commitment to make the warmer: educated.

.. "}'jThe'1;efei;'e, they have decided tit? utilise the Services <:3f the

WA NQ999/2087

JUDGMENT

This appeal is pneferled challenging the order oi:.’;;%:.e
single Judge who has set aside the awaxti sf tilt? _
directing reinstatement of the appellant
flfaoe/ha : A. ~ _

2. The facts leading to this appezafeete ae t R

The Government of for
education for edueafing_womee- women
fiem socially and It proviéed
educational for ezdcalescent girls with a
necessary ” leanling envimnment.

The pmgxamsfiefiizas Samakhya’ in the year 1989.

The State ..Ggveu1:i;t::i:1e11t; ti:-zn«” . ‘.3Z?.Q1,1989, registered Mahila
The’ were engaged as educaters

3&5 . The order of appointment is at Annexure

~ . V} been distinguisheti. From the aforesaid Judgments,
V yv tit :}f}’t3C{>’I:JZ1ES clear that before the introduction of Clause (bb) in

2(c:x>}, the Courts interpreted that the retrcnchmcznt

WA 310.999} 2097

inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but
not include: ” 4′
“2.(9«:::}(bb) termination of the V
service of tht: workman as a ‘the-i’
‘non-mnerwal of the J téf .,
emplayment between tfie «..§n1piDjy’ét’ At
the workman concerned exfifigr
of such contractv bgtng ._undetrVV”‘
a stipulation. in

thcreiscu” _ ‘

9. 1 wag . period of
conaact C£fVxeI}i%:}:i'(‘?}’1I}Ei:f?i1:f_QV!}.T€%{t.#&(3f1 ttzfiémployer and
the snféritmatif no questielz of
its ;i:>’ut there existed a
Sfipulafifllt tin’ that the Executive
Offi£’€?I’ hété .j{)»t1}V:.§’«’:%I’H.15{) dismms her Without

_ azgy v The questient which new
.A :f;xr4vA:”‘cQnsideration, is whether Section

‘Vt Act is attracted to tlm facts and

Ci;’cV11m$téi1t£.:aé’s of this case.”

§:9;. _II1 case also the Judgment of the Apex Court 5:1

V

and not to bug term empioyment anti that
works for 10 years, the said prmrision is net
such inierpretation would Iesult in violatien Qf
provision. The learned single Judge, cm careful

‘ ~v.’VAco:1eVi.1{1’eration of the entire material an recent, the catena of

_ in _

we M999/1290?

includes any termination of service in any maxmer and;’vfer.y_r2LI:y
reason othewzise than as a punishment inflicted .
diSCip§11ElI’_§?’ aciien. Therefore, that
terminaiien simpliciter amounting 1:9 1″ef:”7enc;%1<r«§¥_fit:'
background, the Parliament amends-pl L,
Ciause Qioes} tfbbl. By introduefiofithe same they
exciudeé flora the purview of of the
sexvice of the workman as a__ of the
Contact 03? employn;;ei§i:;VVe§§env:e:en L «end the workmen
concerned on its terminated under
stipulation of emploment.

Therefore, o;1€:e” «’.tIie– that a tennination cf
empioymenfi etvsf stipuiatrion 31:1 contxact of

e3.15p3Q}*maé!zi’§~ does 110: to retmnchment, it is not possible to

I3oi.cVi~, said statut-sly pmvision, it appiies only to

ééiew <3'1'*–{}1é»-."1:1ait:r afiéi'-'"::§1czmg that the termination is not illega}

— a compeusafi-311 of Rs.30,{}OOf- to each 0f the
~ : .«..a;;.pE:IIantS,V Which has not 136311 challenged. In fact the same has

by the respomtlents to the appellants to Show their

.. gg ..

WA Nok99’9/ 2907
decisions cited befgrvc him, having regard to the facts i;1.%f:.yij$~.¢ase,
has rightly hsicl that terminafion of thsse
accordance with the Carder of appointmtglgt. {t
that thfi appoinmlent of app:-;:}Ia1;:t is ”
can be terminated at any time? Withput
fact order of appointment has to .fi1:L:li1’Vfl2(Z.’ §Z'(}Bt€Xt that
tht: serviceé of the l’I1HgfX¢t11§}’11g their
assistance for the upfifii11g’VHc;fT’ the rural areas
and they V(}l13.I1″tt*:*{;’I;fi’:{§£C3 ‘i.e., to make use of
their service. not the saiary.

20. not Q56 any merit in this appeal.

A-:c:3rdi11g1:v ,’ ap13;§:.z§1′:_:i:-;.

21 _– .13 $16 1és1’fiied é;ingle Judge has taken a sgvmpathetic

the decisien in S.M.Ni1ajka:r’s C3353, has

-23-

WA No.99?! -200?

22. However, We axe ef the View that haviug_..€%e:g;’a1t1vj’ the

admitted facts, the appellants came fozwaxd to_~:*e:;d}f:rrb éezviee

women. folk and their sexvices are voluntazyiand. t1}ej:A.xx%ere”i§?<Q:1§§;1g

on honorarium, another sum cf -I_2s.2CV{.{)v0.'{}_!– 3?!€' a'};?_aI'd$:§d as

addiiional compensation.

Ordered accordingly. ._
I ” Iudge

Sd/..

Iudgé

b:1v*