- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2023 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAN S/O MADURAI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT No.2-190 2ND BLOCK NEW EXTENSION NEAR DATTA SCHOOL BETHAMANGALA (P) KOLAR DISTRICT-563 116 …APPELLANT (BY SMT. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BESCOM K.R. CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.02.2023 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.63784/2016 (L-TER). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) We have heard Smt. Avani Chokshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. A Ledger Clerk appointed in the respondent - BESCOM, on a contract basis, is before this Court in this appeal, challenging the dismissal of his Writ Petition No.63784/2016 (L-TER) by judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 09.02.2023. He was appointed pursuant to an interview conducted on 28.05.1999 as 'Ledger Clerk' to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 assist the M.E.Men at Bangarpet Sub-Division, Bethamangala Section, admittedly on a contract basis with consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.1,553/-. On 21.12.2024, he was issued with a certificate that he was entrusted with ledger works in the Bethamangala accounts section on temporary contract with mandatory breaks in service from 11.01.1999 to 28.02.2004. However, it is contended that his services were dispensed with on 28.02.2024. He approached the Labour Court seeking reinstatement. By Annexure 'A' - Award, produced along with the Writ Petition, his case was considered along with two other similar matters and a common award was passed dismissing the disputes. The petitioner challenged the award before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, modifying the award to the extent of directing the respondent - employer to make payment of a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of copy of the order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in not directing the reinstatement of the appellant. It is submitted that since the appellant was in continuous service since 1999 and having worked for more than 240 days in each of the calendar years, the learned Single Judge ought to have noticed that the rejection of the I.D.No.382/2006, was erroneous. It is contended that the termination of service of the appellant without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was completely unsustainable. It is further contended that several persons who were appointed along with the petitioner had been regularized in service and that the appellant who had been recruited after an interview was entitled to continue in service as in the case of a regular employee. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner was only a contractual employee and had been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 specifically appointed and his service regulated in terms of the contract alone. It is submitted that the other two persons who had suffered the common award along with the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions No.16311-16312/2008. The Writ Petitions were disposed of by Order dated 13.11.2009, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement or regularization but that they are entitled to the cash compensation of Rs.75,000/- each for the services rendered by them to the respondent. The said judgment was taken in an appeal by the workmen, filing Writ Appeals No.319-320/2010 and by the Management, filing Writ Appeals No.153/2010 and 3009/2010. A common judgment was rendered on 20.08.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court. All the appeals were dismissed and the award of compensation at Rs.75,000/- to the workmen by the learned Single Judge was found to be just and proper. It is contended that it was following the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 judgment that the learned Single Judge had directed the payment of the compensation to the appellant as well. 5. We have considered the contentions advanced. We notice that it is the specific case of the appellant that he was appointed on contract basis on consolidated monthly remuneration initially for a period of one month from 01.06.1999 to 30.06.1999. Thereafter, his services were continued. On 28.02.2004, he was orally informed by the respondent that his services stood terminated. After considering the materials on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen were engaged only temporarily and on contract and that their services were not liable to be regularized and that they were not entitled to reinstatement as well. 6. The disputes with regard to three workmen were dealt with by the common order. In the case of other two workmen, they had approached this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court had set aside the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 order of the Labour Court and had directed the payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to each of the two workers. The matter was taken in an appeal both by the workmen and the respondents and a common judgment was rendered upholding the rejection of the I.D. and upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We notice from the Case Information System that the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).3152-3153/2014 filed against the said judgment have also been dismissed on 14.02.2014. The judgment of the Division Bench had therefore attained finality. It was thereafter that the present writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the very same award of the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment rendered in the case of other two workmen who were parties to the very same judgment and directed payment of Rs.75,000/- as compensation. It is against this judgment that the appeal is filed. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view of the facts as stated, we are of the opinion - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42497-DB WA No. 849 of 2023 that there is no sustainable ground raised in this appeal for an interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. In view of the fact that a common award had already been considered by the learned Single Judge and the order in appeal having attained finality, there is no scope for a different judgment being rendered in the appellant's case. 8. We find no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10