Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank vs Sri. Krishnaji

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—The subject matter of this Writ Appeal is an award dated 12.04.1994 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore in C.R. No. 40/1989 directing the appellant - Bijapur Grameena Bank - which bank as now is said to have amalgamated with Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, constituted under the Regional Rural Banking Act, 1976, directing the employer bank to reinstate the respondent to the post of attendar and to pay back wages at 10% from 28.12.1997 till the date of the award. This Award had been questioned by filing W.P. No. 28114/1999 (L-TER) and a learned single Judge of this Court who examined the petition was of the view that there was absolutely no scope for interference in the exercise of Writ jurisdiction; that the Award was fully justified on its merits and therefore, dismissed the Writ petition as per order dated 11th March, 2005, which is questioned in this Writ Appeal.

The Writ appeal itself came to be dismissed as per order dated 16th September, 2008 for non-prosecution of appeal as there was no representation for the appellant on that day.

It is, thereafter, application in Miscellaneous No. 80108/2011 was filed for recalling the order dated 16th September, 2008 and Miscellaneous No. 80107/2011 is filed for condonation of delay in filing the application for recalling the order.

The delay is to the extent of 906 days. Application for recalling is opposed.

We have heard Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel on behalf of Sri S.S. Halalli, appearing for appellant and Sri Umesh V. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

Sri Mahadev S. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to rely upon judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Sood Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, to contend that even before Tribunal the Award had come to be passed ex parte; that the Tribunal has power to set aside of ex parte order; that the Award passed by the Tribunal is virtually like of an ex parte order and though an application was filed six months after passing the order; that it was not considered positively and therefore, Award of the Tribunal suffers.

There is a delay of 906 days in filing the present application for recalling the order also.

Be that as it may be, we find that this is not a matter worthy of examination in a Writ appeal of this nature and in fact learned single Judge of this Court has bestowed his attention to this argument and positively rejected by assigning reasons. The writ petition against the Award of the Tribunal is one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which article this Court is having supervisory jurisdiction over the Courts and Tribunal functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. If there is no lack of jurisdiction in passing the award, assuming that there is an error of law, there is no need for this Court to interfere, until and unless a right is denied under patently untenable and arbitrary award passed by the Tribunal.

The Award directing reinstatement of workman assuming that the employment was based on oral appointment etc, is not a matter which warrants further examination in Writ appeal, when a learned single Judge of this Court has fully looked into the matter and opined against the appellant. We do not find any justifiable reasons to interfere with the same and also we find no justifiable reasons to recall the order and to further go into the merits of the matter.

Accordingly, application for recalling the order dated 16.09.2008 is rejected and on the merits of the case, also we do not find any merits in the main appeal. Accordingly, Miscellaneous No. 80107/2011, Miscellaneous No. 80108/2011 are dismissed. Consequently, writ appeal also dismissed.