- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.201128 OF 2022 (S-REG) BETWEEN: SRI. RUDRAYYA SWAMY, S/O SRI. SHARANAYYA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIMBARGA, ALAND TALUK, KALABURAGI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.NAIK V. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, NO.16, 2ND RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE, CHITTAPUR, KALABURAGI DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALHAR RAO, AAG A/W SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND GRANT THE PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS. A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.KRUMA/EE/SIBBANDI/DIDARA/2/2015-16 DATED 11.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2022 bearing No.KruMaEe/Sibbandhi/Didara/2/2015-16 passed by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-F to the writ petition, the present writ petition is preferred by the employee. 2. Petitioner was employed as daily wager/mason by respondent No.1. His services were terminated. There has been an industrial dispute by way of KID No.677/1999. The Labour Court has passed the following order: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 “The petition is allowed in part. 1. The termination order dated 16.06.1985 of the respondent is hereby set aside. The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner back to service within four weeks from the date of publication of the award coming into force, without any back wages. 2. The petitioner is not entitled to continuity of service. 3. This order shall not be considered as regularization of service of the petitioner. 4. The award shall come into force from the date of its publication coming into force. 5. The parties to bear their respective costs. 6. Send copy of the award to Government for its publication U/s 17-A of the I.D.Act.” 3. Aggrieved by the said order, both the employer and the employee preferred writ petitions which came to be dismissed and the order of the Labour Court was upheld. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 to regularize his services. Respondent No.1 on the ground that continuity of services has not been given to the petitioner and also for the reason that the order passed by the Labour Court specifically - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 stipulated that the order should not be considered as regularization of services of the petitioner, rejected his request and passed the impugned order (Annexure-F to the writ petition). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the order of the Labour Court does not state that the services of the petitioner should not be regularized. After passing of the order by the Labour Court, the petitioner has been employed once again by the respondents and he has been in service for more than 10 years continuously and the impugned order has been passed without taking this particular fact into consideration. 5. Reliance is placed on the order of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others vs. M.L. Kesari and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, wherein in paragraph No.7, it has been held as under. “7. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 “regularization” enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the aforementioned case law has not been taken into consideration by the respondents while passing the impugned order. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 justifies the impugned order at Annexure-F. However, he is unable to answer the Court when a pointed question is asked as to whether the ratio laid down in M.L.Kesari’s case (supra) has been followed by the respondents or not while passing the impugned order at Annexure-F. 8. As respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration all the relevant laws applicable to the case on hand, the same is hereby set aside and the matter stands remitted back to the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3235 WP No. 201128 of 2022 9. Petitioner shall appear before the respondent No.1 on 10.07.2025 without further orders. 10. Respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner within a period of three months from 10.07.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VNR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:SI