- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3434 WP No. 205534 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.205534 OF 2019 (L-ID) BETWEEN: THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION NO.2, SUB-DIVISION, KARATGI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPAL-583 227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. C. PASTAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. NASEERUDDIN S/O MOHD. AFIFUDDIN, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: EX-CLEANER, R/O KARATGI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583 229. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY PASSING THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS/ORDERS: Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3434 WP No. 205534 of 2019 (I) A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE JUDGMENT IN APPLICATION NO.80/2017 DATED 07.03.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, KALABURAGI VIDE ANNEXURE-C. (II) ISSUE ANY OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order passed in Application No.80/2017 dated 07.03.2019 by the District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kalaburagi vide Annexure-C to the writ petition, respondent No.1 therein has preferred this writ petition. 2. Respondent No.2 herein, on the ground that his services has been wrongfully terminated, raised a dispute and Reference No.64/2005 was registered before Labour Court, Gulbarga, which passed the following: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3434 WP No. 205534 of 2019 “ORDER The reference made by the Karnataka Government U/s 10(1)(c) of I.D.Act is allowed. The oral termination order passed by the respdts. on 11.4.2001 is set aside. The respdts are directed to reinstate the workman into service as a Driver on daily wage basis as per the current DSR rates within four weeks from the date of Award coming into force on its publication The Ist Party is entitled only for continuity of service, but not entitled for any of the backwages. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. The Award shall come into force from the date of Award coming into force on its publication. Send the copy of Award to Government U/s 17-A of I.D.Act for its publication.” 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred Writ Petition No.82303/2009, which came to be dismissed and the order passed in Reference No.64/2005 attained finality. 4. In spite of the order passed in Reference No.64/2005 attaining finality, the petitioner herein did not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3434 WP No. 205534 of 2019 honor the said award. Hence, the petitioner therein (respondent No.2 herein) preferred Application No.80/2017 under Section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to recover the amounts due from the employer. The same has been allowed by way of the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, disputes the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and contends that petitioner is not liable to pay any amounts to respondent No.2. However, he admits that the petitioner has suffered an order at the hands of Labour Court in Reference No.64/2005, which has attained finality, wherein the relationship between the parties has been answered and the order as aforementioned has been passed, directing the petitioner herein to reinstate the workman on a daily wage basis. Based on the said order, the impugned order has been passed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3434 WP No. 205534 of 2019 6. The petitioner is unable to state how the impugned order does not confirm to the order passed in Reference No.64/2005. As the impugned order is passed only to pay amounts to respondent No.2 as accrued in accordance with the order passed in Reference No.64/2005, I do not see any error in the order. 7. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58