- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT APPEAL NO.2984 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: T. SRINIVASA SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT SHAMARAO ROAD, 9TH CROSS TUMKUR - 572 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE, K. H. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H. R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 19520/2011 C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 41137/2010 DATED 14/7/2011. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19520/2011 (L-KSRTC) connected with W.P.No.41137/2010 (L-KSRTC). 2. Sri. Shekar L., learned counsel appearing for appellants and Smt. H. R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for respondents are present before the Court physically. 3. Perused the order rendered by the learned Single Judge. 4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under : The appellant - T. Srinivasa was working as Junior Assistant on the establishment of the respondent/K.S.R.T.C. On allegation of unauthorized absence, the respondent/K.S.R.T.C., dismissed the appellant from service vide order dated 30.07.2007. As on the date of dismissal, a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 dispute was raised by the K.S.R.T.C. Staffs and Workers' Federation regarding charter of demand in I.D.No.148/2005, pending adjudication on the file of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The appellant being the concerned workman of that dispute, the respondent did not file any approval application as required under Section 33 (2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act'). Hence, it is the contention that the order of dismissal is nonest and void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAIPUR ZILLA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., VS. RAMGOPAL SHARMA 2002-I LLJ Page 834 has held that, in view of non-filing of approval application, the order of dismissal is nonest in the eye of law. Filing of an application under section 33(2)(b) is mandatory on the part of the respondent while passing the order of dismissal. The respondent was very much aware that the dispute raised by the Union was pending adjudication as on the date of dismissal of the appellant from service. In view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is contended that the order of dismissal is nonest. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant presses into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 service for consideration of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. It is urged in the grounds of the writ appeal that the appellant had not taken any plea regarding violation of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and a dispute was raised by the K.S.R.T.C. Staffs and Workers' Union regarding charter of demand. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has facilitated the following list of authorities, in support of his case: "1. Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., vs Ramgopal Sharma and others reported in 2002 (1) LLJ page 834. 2. New Motors (Private) Ltd., vs Morris(KT) reported in 1961 LLJ page 551. 3. Pradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs Sankar Das and another reported in 2012 (1) LLJ Ori 519. 4. Top Security Ltd., vs Subhas Chander Jha and another reported in 2012-iv LLJ DELHI 542. 5. Engineering Laghu Udyog Employees Union vs Judge, Labour court and Industrial Tribunal reported in 2004-I SC 1105. 6. Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC rep. by the Chief Law Officer, BMTC, Bangalore vs M.Narayana - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 Reddy, S/o Munireddy reported in 2013-iii LLJ KANT 80." 7. Apart from the list of authorities as facilitated by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel has taken us through the grounds urged in this appeal seeking intervention of the order rendered by learned Single Judge. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.No.2/2014 seeking condonation of delay of 1202 days in filing the writ appeal. This application is appended with an affidavit of appellant - T. Srinivasa. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation vehemently opposes the said application and has also filed statement of objections to the said application. It is contended that in the present case, the workman raised the plea of not taking approval and the same has been rejected by the learned single judge as the workman had not raised this plea before the labour court. Further the workman remained silent from the year 2011 without even questioning the order of the learned single judge which was decided on merits and by taking into consideration the long absence of the workman. The corporation has not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 settled any cases similar to the case of the appellant inasmuch as the writ petition has been disposed of on 14.07.2011 and the appeal has been filed on 27.11.2014 where there is an inordinate delay of nearly four years in filing the appeal. The workman has not discharged work from 2005 and has remained silent for a period of four years is not entitled for any relief as he has exhibited his negligence and dereliction in discharging his duty. Hence, it is prayed that the application for condonation of delay inclusive of the appeal be dismissed. 10. Paragraph No.3 of the aforesaid application reads as under: "It is submitted that in the meantime the respondent come forward to settle all the cases of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority during the pendency of the proceedings in ID 148/2005 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. The respondent settled almost all the cases of violation u/s 33(2)(b) pending before the various courts. The appellant under the impression that if the dispute pending, the respondent consider his case also for settlement, hence he filed complaint u/s 33A. Since the respondent took a contention that the complaint filed by the appellant is attracting resjudicata, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 appellant is filed this appeal. Hence there is a delay of 1202 days." 11. Keeping in view the provisions of law, it is deemed appropriate to refer to Section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), which reads as under: "11. Res judicata No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court." 12. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Act'), which reads as under: "115. Estoppel.- When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing." - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 13. Keeping in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, the appellant is neither diligent nor vigilant to file this application seeking condonation of delay and also for seeking intervention of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. It is relevant to refer to paragraph No.16 of the order dated 19.06.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Complaint No.01/2013, which reads as under : "16. In this case, there is no explanation on behalf of the complainant for filing the complaint on 04.01.2013 with respect to the order dated 30.07.2007 i.e., after lapse of 6 years. Hence, I have inferred that the complainant is entitle for the relief as per Section 33-A of I.D. Act with effect from 04.01.2013 only. Hence, I answer points 1 and 2 in the affirmative and pass the following; A W A R D The complaint filed under Section 33-A of I.D. Act by the complainant with respect to the order dated 30.07.2007 on 04.01.2013 is partly allowed in the following terms. In view of non compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of I.D. Act, with effect from 04.01.2013 the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 dismissal order dated 30.07.2007 is hereby set aside. The complainant is entitled for consequential relief with effect from 04.01.2013 only." 15. Learned Single Judge has referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR Vs. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94. So also is the tenor of the law in STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. ALOK SHARMA reported in 2009(7) SCC 647(C). In fact, in the case of GURUSHARAN SINGH Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE reported in AIR 1996 SC 1175 at paragraph No.9, the Supreme Court reiterated that, neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. 16. Paragraph No.12 of the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.19520/2011 c/w 41137/2010 indicates that the order dated 30.07.2007 of termination from service was during the pendency of ID 148/2005 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner was a workman concerned and in the absence of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 approval of the termination as required by Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the order of termination is void ab intio, deserves rejection and also made an observation that keeping in view the contention made by learned counsel for the parties and also referring the judgment in the case of SURYA DEV RAI Vs. RAM CHANDER RAI reported in 2003(3) KLT 490, the Supreme Court considering the nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India held thus: "Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction." 17. Perused paragraph No.13 of the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.Nos.19520/2011 c/w 41137/2010 relating to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD Vs. N. B. NARAWADE reported in (2005) 3 SCC 134. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5817-DB WA No. 2984 of 2014 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions of law and judgments rendered by the learned Single Judge and the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, the delay application would not survive for consideration. 19. Consequently, the application I.A.No.2/2014 filed for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed. 20. In view of the dismissal of the delay application, there is no consequence to consider the prayer urged in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is also hereby dismissed. 21. Consequence upon the dismissal of this appeal, any pending applications also stand dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3