- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 3417 OF 2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A. RAGHUPATHY BHAT, S/O VASUDEV BHAT, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A MOODU ALEVOOR VILLAGE, ALEVOOR POST, VIA UDYAVARA, UDUPI (TQ) & (DIST)-574133. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SONA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF SRI VENKATARAMANA EDUCATIONAL TURST KARKALA-574102 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K., 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 WRIT PETITION No.12867/2013 DATED 21/1/16 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & EQUITY. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ appeal has been filed praying for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.12867/2013 dated 21.01.2016. By means of the impugned judgment, two writ petitions filed by each of the parties were dismissed by a common order. Under challenge in the writ petition that was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is the order dated 18.01.2013 passed in Execution Case No.191/2007 on the file of the District Judge, Udupi that pertained to Item Nos.1 to 3 of the memo of calculations and applying Karnataka Educational Institutions (Recruitment and Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees in Aided Colleges of Education and Teachers - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 Training Institutes) Rules, 20011 while calculating subsistence allowance. 3. It appears that an order was passed by the Educational Appellate Tribunal2 in EAT No.5/1997 dated 17.08.2000. The Tribunal aforesaid is constituted under Section 10 of the Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 19753. The aforesaid order dated 17.08.2000 passed by the Tribunal was challenged in civil revision petitions under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19084 before this Court in Civil Revision Petition No.3150/2000 connected with Civil Revision Petition No.3436/2000. By a common order dated 11.07.2002, the Court observed that since effectively, the Court is setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority, therefore, the cut off date would be 17.08.2000, with the employee being entitled to claim subsistence allowance till that date and to claim the arrears of salary and back wages on and from 19.08.2000. The Institution was directed to compute and 1 2001 Rules 2 Tribunal 3 Act of 1975 4 CPC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 pay over to the employee the arrears within an outer limit of four months from the date of the order. Other directions regarding terminal benefits and pension were also given. However, this Court noted certain distinguishing features in the case and the back wages were not allowed. 4. Thereafter, a Review Petition No.88/2003 was filed by the appellant herein seeking review of the aforesaid judgment dated 11.07.2002 passed in CRP No.3105/2000 connected with CRP No.3436/2000. The aforesaid review petition was disposed of refusing interference but observing that in view of the settled meaning of the word back wages, it was unnecessary to make any clarification in the order and if there is any dispute regarding the quantum of the amount to be paid by the respondent as per the order passed by this Court on 11.07.2002, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal to execute the award passed in favour of the petitioner. 5. It appears that execution proceedings were filed by the appellant, in which an order dated 18.01.2013 was passed, which was subjected to challenge by both the parties in Writ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 Petition No.8692/2013 connected with Writ Petition No.12867/2013. Both the petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the grievance of the teacher, that the computation of the amounts by the Execution Court is not in terms of Item Nos.1 and 3 of his memo of calculations, is devoid of merit. The computation of the amounts by the Execution Court is in the letter and spirit of this Court's order passed in the revision petitions and in the review petition and other petitions. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petitions, this Court had observed that the teacher would be entitled to amounts as per the revised pay scales during the period for which back wages is to be paid. It was further observed that a party is entitled to take advantage of the commencement of the 2001 Rules. On the question of awarding of interest by the execution Court, after referring to judgments of the Supreme Court, granting of interest was held to be justified. 5. On perusal of clause (d) of sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Act of 1975, it is evident that the Tribunal has the same powers as are vested in a Court executing a decree of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 a civil Court under the CPC, as if such orders were decrees of a civil Court. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is the order of the Tribunal that was challenged before the learned Single Judge and therefore, this writ appeal would be maintainable, inasmuch as the petition was filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 7. In our opinion, the powers of the Tribunal under the Act of 1975 can be classified in two categories. One would be the quasi-judicial power to adjudicate a dispute on its merit. The other power would be the aspect of execution of its own orders by exercising the same powers as are vested in a Court executing a decree of a Civil Court under the CPC. The powers of execution under Part-II and under Order XXI of the CPC include judicial powers (e.g. Order XXI Rule 58 and Order XXI Rule 101). 8. It needs no iteration that Courts and Tribunals both come under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49010-DB WA No. 3417 of 2016 and Others5, matters emanating from orders passed by Civil Courts, could be challenged under Article 227 and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, no writ appeal would lie against a judgment passed on a petition under Article 227. The order passed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned before this Court, has been passed under Article 227 of the Constitution, given the fact that the Tribunal was exercising its jurisdiction for executing its own orders under the provisions of the CPC. Therefore, we hold that the instant writ appeal is not maintainable. 9. This writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. SD/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 5 (2009)5 SCC 616