- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 29834 OF 2015 (S-RES) BETWEEN: THE MYSURU-CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES LTD., SIDDARTH NAGAR, T.NARASIPURA ROAD, MYSURU-570 011. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI CHANNAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. S/O CHANNAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE [PH]) AND: 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, MYSURU REGION, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MYSURU-570 024. 2. SRI RAJASHEKHARA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE KARIKOSSAPPA, NO.7/APPELLANT 12TH CROSS, RAMANUJA ROAD, MYSURU-570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J. ESWARAPPA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 [PH]; SRI. M. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.496/2012 BY THE K.A.T AT ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an award dated 30.03.2012 passed in Dispute No.JRM/675/2009-10 by the respondent No.1. The petitioner has also called in question an order dated 07.07.2015 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal No.496/2012, by which it dismissed the appeal as barred by time. 2. The petitioner contends that a domestic enquiry was held against the respondent No.2 for alleged lapses and misconduct following which Enquiry Officer was appointed, who after an enquiry submitted his report. After furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and after hearing the respondent No.2, the petitioner passed an order dated 27.04.2007 demoting the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 respondent No.2 from the post of Deputy Manager (Finance) to the post of Assistant Manager (Finance) and re-fixing his basic salary which was in the pay scale of Rs.7400-200-8800-260- 10880-320-13120 at the minimum pay of Rs.7400/- and also placed the respondent No.2 last in the seniority. The respondent No.2 submitted a memorandum on 16.11.2007 to the petitioner - Milk Union and requested it to modify the order of punishment dated 27.04.2007 and agreed that he would not challenge the modified order of punishment before any Court. 3. Following this, the petitioner reconsidered the matter and passed a modified order on 23.11.2007 re-fixing the pay scale of the respondent No.2 from Rs.7400-13120 to Rs.14050-25050 and fixed his basic pay at Rs.22,650/- with effect from 01.07.2005. The respondent No.2 after getting the benefits and after his suspension period was treated as on work, he raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Act before the respondent No.1 and sought for a direction to the petitioner herein to pay subsistence allowance for the period from 13.08.2004 to 12.02.2005. The respondent No.1 passed an order dated 30.03.2012 by which it set aside the order passed by the petitioner herein treating the period of absence of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 respondent No.2 herein from 13.08.2004 to 12.02.2005 as suspension period and directed the petitioner herein to pay the balance subsistence allowance to the petitioner herein. The petitioner thereafter belatedly challenged the order passed by the respondent No.1 herein dated 30.03.2012 before the Tribunal under Section 105(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioner claimed that it also filed an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal without noticing the fact that the application for condonation of delay was filed, proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that no application was filed for condonation of delay and thereby, dismissed the appeal as barred by time. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that along with the appeal filed before the Tribunal, an application was filed for condonation of delay and the same is evident from the order sheet dated 21.02.2013. He contends that the application for stay of the order passed by the respondent No.1 herein was filed only on 10.03.2015. He contends that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 Tribunal had misplaced the application for condonation of delay. Consequently, he contends that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal without noticing the application for condonation of delay was defective. He also submits that filing of an application for condonation of delay is a mere formality and even if such an application is not filed, the Tribunal was bound to look into the assertions made in the appeal memorandum and condone the delay. He submits that the Tribunal could not have rejected the appeal on technical ground. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Anr. [AIR 2021 SC 2637]. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has remained absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. A perusal of the order sheet maintained by the Tribunal shows that notice of the appeal and application was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 issued to the respondent No.2 herein. It is not known whether the application referred to in the said order is the application filed by the petitioner herein for condonation of delay. The Tribunal therefore must have perused the records before holding that the petitioner herein had not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Assuming that the petitioner herein had not filed the application, the Tribunal must have taken appropriate steps to call upon the petitioner to file necessary application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal after having heard the appellant/petitioner herein, could not have rejected the appeal on a technical ground. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 07.07.2015 passed in Appeal No.496/2012 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the said appeal before the Tribunal stands restored and the Tribunal shall consider and dispose off the appeal afresh in view of the finding recorded above. It is open for the petitioner herein to file a fresh application for - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9668 WP No. 29834 of 2015 condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. If an application is filed, the Tribunal shall consider the same and proceed in accordance with law. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2017 for modification of the interim order dated 14.12.2015 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51