- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 49 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRAINING INSTITUTE, BEGUR, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJAKUMAR M., AGA) AND: MANJUNATH S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BEGUR VILLAGE AND POST, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.V. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07.04.2017 IN REFERENCE NO.2/2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, VIDE ANNEXURE-B. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned Government Advocate for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The Petitioner/State is assailing the award dated 07.04.2017 in REF.No.2/2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Chamarajanagar. In terms of the award, the reference is allowed in part and the petitioner before this Court is directed to reinstate the respondent of this petition with effect from 22.10.2014 as a menial labourer and the Court also directed 50% back wages from 22.10.2014 till reinstatement. The Court also directed continuity of service with other applicable benefits to the said post with effect from 22.10.2014. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned award is untenable. He would refer to Annexure-A, the order dated 16.06.2003 which provides for appointment of menial workers and referring to the said order at Annexure-A would contend that appointment of menial worker is only for a limited period and cannot claim continuity of service, when a menial worker is appointed in terms of the said order. He would also submit that the respondent has not produced any order of appointment to claim the benefit under the Industrial Disputes Act and would contend that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would urge that the issue raised in the present petition is covered in terms of the law declared by this Court in Writ Petition No.19566/2014. He would also submit that the order dated 22.02.2016 in the aforementioned writ petition is accepted by the State and order is complied and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 would also submit that in the aforementioned writ petition, the respondents in the said petition were also working in a school as the respondent in the present petition. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. Though the Learned Government Advocate would submit that there is no order of termination passed against the respondent, it is not in dispute that the respondent was denied employment with effect from 22.01.2014. It is also borne out from the records that he was working as a menial worker with effect from 17.12.2007. 7. Both parties have not produced any order relating to the appointment. However, it is borne out from the records that the respondent worked from 2007 to 2014 as noticed above. Under these circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that he has completed 240 working days under the petitioner and while denying the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 employment, the compensation is not paid as required under law. 8. The Court is of the view that the issue raised in the present petition is covered in terms of the Order passed in W.P.No.19566/2014 referred to above. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the aforesaid award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 9. It is submitted that the respondent had filed execution petition to execute the award in his favour. However, the execution proceeding could not proceed further in view of the stay order granted by this Court. Though the learned Government Advocate would submit that the respondent has not joined employment in terms of the impugned award, what is required to be noticed is the operation of the award is stayed. In view of the stay order sought by the petitioner, respondent was not reinstated. It is not the case of the petitioner that it has - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:511 WP No. 49 of 2019 made an offer to the respondent to join the employment subject to the result of the writ petition. 10. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is liable to pay 50% of back wages till the date of reinstatement from the date of denial of employment as already noticed above. The order shall be complied within three months from today, failing which, the petitioner is liable to pay interest on the amount payable at the rate of 7% per annum. 11. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32