- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 33658 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI RAMESH S/O T.VENKATARAMU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDENT OF M. SHETTAHALLI VILLAGE, K.SHETTAHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA L.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MANDYA ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, SRIRANGAPATNA PANCHAYATH, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SABBANAKUPPE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, SABBANAKUPPE VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKARA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO CONSIDER THE LOK-ADALATH ORDER PASSED III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SRPATTANA CRLA 5011/2019 ON 12.11.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has the advantage of an award. dated 05.02.1997 in Industrial Dispute No.127/1994. The award reads as under. "The application is allowed. The II party is ordered to reinstate the I party with continuity of service and with full back wages. No costs. Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication" 2. The petitioner has filed this petition for mandamus to the fourth respondent to extend the benefit under the award. This Court has called upon the Chief Executive Officer, Srirangapatna Panchayath [the third respondent] to file an affidavit on the position that the petitioner held before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 commencement of the dispute and the position to which he is reinstated after the afore award. The third respondent has filed an affidavit stating that the petitioner was working as a "waterman" prior to the commencement of the dispute and he is accordingly reinstated on 28.10.2022. The third respondent has also stated that the petitioner is working in the office of Sabbanakuppe Grama Panchayath though reinstated as a waterman. 3. Sri M. S. Devaraju, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, places on record that vide resolution dated 28.07.2023, the petitioner's reinstatement is formally accepted and salary is being credited to the petitioner's account with State Bank of India, SRS Temple Street, Srirangapatna. Sri L.Raja, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute that the petitioner is reinstated and he is admitted to salary though he contends that except for the present month, the salary was being handed over - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 by cheque. The learned Counsel submits that the dispute would only subsist insofar as the petitioner's claim for continuity of service with consequential benefits and back wages. 4. Sri M.S. Devaraju submits that the fourth respondent is financially constrained and therefore would like to rely upon the proposition that no work no pay to contest the petitioner's claim for back wages but without contesting the petitioner's claim for continuity in service and consequential benefits. When extended with an opportunity, Sri L.Raja, on instructions from the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is willing to forgo 50% of the back wages and that this Court could decide on the quantum of back wages. 5. It is indeed salient that grant of back wages, when admittedly a workman has not worked, is a matter for the Court's discretion and in the absence - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10654 WP No. 33658 of 2024 of material to show that the workman is not alternatively employed, it would be in the discretion of the Court/Tribunal to decide the question of back wages. However, the fourth respondent's representative has accepted the award and that has prevailed over all these years. The Court has considered these circumstances to pass just and reasonable orders without room for precipitation or protraction with the fourth respondent admitting that the petitioner would be extended the benefit of continuity of service. As such, taking this stand on record, the petition stands disposed of calling upon the fourth respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only] as back wages to the petitioner within a period of ten [10] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV