- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY REVIEW PETITION NO. 530 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BANGALURU-560 009. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITRADURGA-577 501. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.N.DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 S/O H.NAGENDRAPPA R/AT: HIREGUNTANURU @ AND POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501. 2. SRI B.MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O BASAWARAJAPPA, R/AT: KURUBARAHALLI @ AND POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501. 3. SRI. GOPAL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O THIPPESWAMY, KOTESHWARA KRUPA, MUNCIPAL COLONY CHITRA DURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 501. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO (A) REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 06.02.2023 IN WA NO.1312/2021 BY MODIFYING THE SAID ORDER BY LIMITING THE ORDER TO THE PRESENT CASE ONLY AND MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT TO OTHERS SIMILARLY PLACED. (B) TO ISSUE ORDER, DIRECTIONS DEEMED FIT TO THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ABOVE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) The delay in filing the review petition has been sufficiently explained and therefore, we condone the delay and allow the application -IA No.1/2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, who appears Online. 3. It appears that an industrial dispute was raised by the three respondents being aggrieved by an action of termination of services after being engaged as Gang man through contract from the year 1997 till 22.07.2000. The dispute was sought to be raised in the year 2013 i.e., after a period of nearly 13 years of termination of the respondents. However, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The reference was answered against the workmen by an award dated 12.05.2017 in Adjudication No. 30/2013. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 4. Challenging the award, a writ petition was filed. By a judgment dated 28.07.2021, the learned Judge directed the appellants to award compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs on account of full and final settlement of their claim to each of the petitioners, in the light of two judgments of the Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Bhurumal1 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Man Singh2. It was further directed by the learned Judge that the amount of compensation be paid within a period of six months, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly, the award passed by the Labour Court was modified and the writ petition disposed of. 5. An intra-court writ appeal was filed, in which the contention raised was that the respondents were engaged for a specified work for a fixed period and on account of efflux of time, their services were terminated. The respondents were not appointed against a sanctioned post and the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court do not apply to the facts of the case. In the writ appeal, the Court considered the evidence 1 (2014) 7 SCC 177 2 (2012) 1 SCC 558 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 on record and held that, a finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the respondents were working between the period 1997 and 2000 and that their services were terminated orally on 20.07.2000. It was submitted that, ordinarily the matter would require remand; and on account of efflux of time, the respondents were not held entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, relying upon the judgments of the Supreme Court, the compensation was directed to be paid as full and final settlement of the claim of the respondents in lieu of reinstatement. It was held that the period of service of the respondents, as found by the Labour Court, having attained finality, the learned Judge had rightly held that, on account of efflux of time, the respondents were not entitled to the relief of reinstatement. The Court did not find any ground to differ from the view taken by the learned Judge. 6. However, it was directed that the amount of compensation would be paid to the respondents within a period of four months from the date of the judgment, failing which, the same would carry interest at the rate of 4% p.a., from the date it became due, till the date of payment to the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 respondents. To that extent the judgment of the learned Judge was modified. 7. Challenging the order under review dated 06.02.2023 passed in Writ Appeal No.1312/2021 (L-RES), a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in Diary No.29059/2023 was filed by the review petitioner before the Supreme Court, in which the following order was passed:- "Delay condoned. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, question of law raised are kept open." 8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that, the question of law involved is that the order passed by the Bench in the writ appeal has not been confined only to the respondents. 9. On perusal of the order sought to be reviewed, it is evident that, it is confined only to the respondents and therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the review - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42091-DB RP No. 530 of 2024 petitioner is misconceived. No other contention has been made. 10. We find no error apparent on the face of the record that would merit review of the impugned judgment. This petition is therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6