- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25263 OF 2025 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI CHETHAN J S S/O. LATE SOMASHEKHAR J. M. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) 66/11 KV, MASTER UNIT STATION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED HASSAN 573 201 RESIDING AT NO. 57, SANTRUPTHI NILAYA DASARAKOPPALU, OPP. TO R. V. KALYANA MANTAPA SBM LAYOUT, HASSAN 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD BANGALORE 560 009. 2. THE DIRECTOR, (ADMINISTRATION & HUMAN RESOURCES) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD BANGALORE 560 009. R Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 3. THE EXECUTE ENGINEER T.L AND S.S DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573 201 4. THE LOCAL COMPLAINT REDRESSAL COMMITTEE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573 201 5. SMT. AARATHI H. M., MAJOR, WORKING AS LINEMAN 66/11 KV, MASTER UNIT SUB STATION KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., HANUBALU HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573 165. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE R4, PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED REPORT DATED:26.06.25(ANNEXURE-AK) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by respondent No.4 at Annexure-AK. 2. At the outset, the learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act 2013’). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the service rules applicable to the petitioner does not provide for an appeal against an order passed by a Committee constituted under the Act 2013. Therefore, he has approached this Court. He further submitted that even the appellate authority constituted under the Industrial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short ‘the Act 1946’) is not applicable to the civil servants, since there is a bar under Section 13B of the Act, 1946. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in W.P.No.15070/2020 disposed of on 20.07.2021 and W.P.No.11147/2024 c/w W.P.Nos.11149/2024 & 11150/2024 disposed of on 05.02.2025. 4. The order, which is challenged in this writ petition is the order passed by the respondent No.4, Committee under the provisions of the Act 2013. Section 18 of the Act 2013 specifically provides for filing an appeal. For clarity, Section 18 of the Act 2013 is extracted hereunder: “18. Appeal.—(1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub- section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non- implementation of such recommendations may prefer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the said person or where no such service rules exist then, without prejudice to provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of ninety days of the recommendations” 5. On a plain reading of the above provision of Section 18 of the Act 2013, it is evident that where service rules provide for an appeal, the aggrieved person must file the appeal accordingly. However, where no such service rules exist, the Act enables filing of an appeal in a prescribed manner. 6. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no appeal provided - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 under the service rules, which is applicable to the petitioner. 7. Under such circumstances, as per Section 18 of the Act 2013, the aggrieved person has to prefer an appeal as per the Rules under the Act 2013. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And Redressal) Rules, 2013 (for short ‘the Rules 2013’) provides for an appeal under Rule 11. Rule 11 of the said the Rules 2013 reads as under: “11. Appeal.- Subject to the provisions of section 18, any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under sub-section (2) of section 13 or under clauses (i) or clause (ii) of sub- section (3) of section 13 or sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non- implementation of such recommendation may prefer an appeal to the appellate authority notified under clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946).” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 8. On a plain reading of the above Rule, the Rule makes it explicitly clear that in the absence of service rules, an appeal can be preferred before the Appellate Authority notified under Clause (a) of section 2 of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 9. Under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the ‘appellate authority’ is defined as under: “2. XXXXXXX (a) “appellate authority” means an authority appointed by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette to exercise in such area as may be specified in the notification the functions of an appellate authority under this Act : Provided that in relation to an appeal pending before an Industrial Court or other authority immediately before the commencement of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Amendment Act, 1963, that Court or authority shall be deemed to be the appellate authority.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 10. In exercise of the said powers, the State Government by Notification dated 06.09.2021 has notified ‘the Additional Labour Commissioner (Industrial Relations), Bangalore’ as the Appellate Authority under the Act. Therefore, in cases where service rules of the employee do not provide for an appeal, the aggrieved person has to approach the said Appellate Authority i.e., Additional Labour Commissioner, Bangalore, under the framework of the Standing Orders. 11. With regard to Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, on the issue of the non-applicability of the Act, it is pertinent to note that Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, clearly states where the applicable service rules do not provide for an appeal mechanism, the appeal shall be filed before the Appellate Authority under the Standing Orders. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 12. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner passed by this Court in W.P.No.15070/2020 disposed of on 20.07.2021 and W.P.No.11147/2024 c/w W.P.Nos.11149/2024 & 11150/2024 disposed of on 05.02.2025, this Court has not considered Section 18 of the Act 2013. Hence, the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. 14. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum. 15. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the impugned order, the respondents are threatening the petitioner with transfer and are proposing to recover the cost imposed under the impugned order. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33876 WP No. 25263 of 2025 16. Therefore, it is made clear that the respondents are directed not to implement the impugned order for a period of three weeks from today. 17. If the petitioner files an application for stay, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the said application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by the observations made in this order. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9