- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 40375 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. B.M.TULASI, D/O B.C.MACHAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O HODDUR VILLAGE, TALUK: MADIKERI, DIST: COORG - 570001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAMACHANDRA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK, (A BANKING COMPANY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES ACQUISITON ACT) HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT TOWN HALL, BENGALURU - 560 002. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR). 2. CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KUVEMPIUNAGAR, MYSORE-570 023, REP. BY ASST. GENERAL MANAGER. 3. CANARA BANK, CHETTALLI BRANCH, COORG DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER'S CLAIM AS PER SUSPENSION ORDER AND PARA 8 OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30.10.2013 IN MISC.NO.01/2010 ON THE FILE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU - ANNEXURE -K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-employee against the respondent-employer seeking to allow the petitioner's claim as per the Suspension order and para-8 of the Division Bench order of this Court and to set aside the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Misc.No.01/2010 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru. 3. The petitioner is an employee of the respondent-Bank. An enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.11651/2007. Aggrieved by the same, she filed an - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 appeal before this Court in W.A.No.1408/2007, wherein paras 7 and 8 read as under: "7. On consideration of the period of adjournments sought by the appellant, we are of the opinion that in the interest of respondent bank it is for us to issue direction to the respondent bank to complete the enquiry as early as possible, since unnecessarily the respondent bank has to pay the subsistence allowance at 100% from 25.07.2007. The matter is pending from that date and appellant cannot be held responsible for the said delay. 8. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed directing the respondent bank to pay subsistence allowance at 100% in terms of Annexure-A dated 23.02.2006 and complete the enquiry within a period of four months. If the enquiry is prolonged on account of adjournments sought by the appellant, in such an event, it is open for the respondent bank to invoke provisions of bipartite agreement and reduce the subsistence allowance payable to the appellant." 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the subsistence allowance was not paid during the pendency of the enquiry as per the order and hence, she had approached this Court. The same was not appreciated in W.P.No.11651/2007 against which she preferred writ appeal in W.A.No.1408/2007. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that despite the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court at para-8 of the writ appeal, wherein the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 respondent was directed to pay subsistence allowance at 100% in terms of Annexure-A and to complete the enquiry within a period of four months, it has not been complied. Therefore, she seeks indulgence of this Court for direction to the respondent to pay the subsistence allowance as per the orders of the Division Bench of this Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Bank has filed an affidavit contending that the Bank has complied the orders of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1408/2007. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondent that he has paid the subsistence allowance at 100% in terms of Annexure-A as per the orders passed by the Division Bench, more specifically at para-8, which is extracted hereinabove. Therefore, there is no balance or arrears that is to be paid by the respondent-Bank. Hence, the petition would not survive for consideration. 7. What is relevant to note here is that Annexure-A is the order of suspension passed by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner in which para 2 proviso 1 and 2 are held as under: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 "2) Where the investigation is done by an outside agency (i.e., Police/CBI) and such investigation is followed by a departmental enquiry by the bank and not by prosecution: xxxx provided that full pay and allowances will be payable after six months from the date of receipt of report of the investigating agency that it has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee or one year after the date of suspension, whichever is later; And provided further that the enquiry is not delayed for reason attributable to the concerned workman or any of his representatives." 8. In view of the above, the petitioner having filed the writ petition challenging the order of suspension was not successful, hence, she preferred an appeal in W.A.No.1408/2007, wherein para-8 very clearly stated that the appeal of the petitioner came to be allowed by directing the respondent-Bank to pay subsistence allowance at 100% in terms of Annexure-A dated 23.02.2006 and to complete the enquiry within a period of four months. 9. It is submitted by both the parties in the enquiry that the complete subsistence allowance was to be paid in accordance with Annexure-A at 100%, which has been paid by the respondent-Bank. Under the circumstances, an affidavit to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33494 WP No. 40375 of 2014 that extent is also enclosed. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to entertain this petition, as the respondent has complied the order at Annexure-A, so also the orders passed by the Division Bench, most specifically at para-8. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is dismissed; ii. The petitioner is entitled to any amount which has not been paid by the respondent-Bank pursuant to the orders of the Division Bench at para-8 and to file for recovery of the said amount in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1