Sanjeeva Vs. State of Karnataka and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- industrial disputes act, 1947. section 10 (1)(c): [subhash b. adi, j] belated reference delay of 13 years in seeking reference - finding of the labour court that the respondent has worked for 240 days direction of the labour court to reinstate the respondent without back wages finding of the labour court that if there is delay, relief has to be moulded held, in case of delay in seeking reference reinstatement is not automatic, several factors have to be taken into consideration. though the respondent has proved that she has worked for 240 days, however, the delay in seeking reference disentitle her from seeking reinstatement, instead, the respondent would be entitled for compensation. the labour court has found that the respondent had worked from 19080 to 1989 i.e., for 9 years. however, since there was delay, the reinstatement is not ordered, but the respondent is required to be compensated. in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation rs.75,000/- was granted. .....filed by the archaks concerned, complaining that they are likely to be relieved from their services on attaining the age of superannuation, whereas they were entitled to continue in office during their lifetime, the apex court has passed an order to maintain status quo. under these circumstances, ultimately, the apex court has to decide the validity of the act and the rules framed under the act including the age of retirement of outdoor and indoor employees of the concerned temples.3. until such time, it would be appropriate to permit employees such as the petitioner to continue in service so that their services could be terminated in terms of the judgment to be delivered by the supreme court in the pending appeal.accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in similar terms as w.p. no. 17274 of 2007, dated 16-2-2009 and the petitioners shall continue in service and their tenure may be determined in terms of the judgment of the supreme court.

Judgment:

ORDER

Anand Byrareddy, J.

1. The present writ petition coming on for hearing, it is seen that an identical issue having arisen in W.P. No. 17274 of 2007, this Court having taken note of the position of the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 having been upheld by a learned Single Judge and a Division Bench of this Court having set aside the said judgment and having struck down the entire enactment and the same having been carried by way of an appeal to the Apex Court and an interim order of stay granted therein.

2. Further, on an application filed by the Archaks concerned, complaining that they are likely to be relieved from their services on attaining the age of superannuation, whereas they were entitled to continue in office during their lifetime, the Apex Court has passed an order to maintain status quo. Under these circumstances, ultimately, the Apex Court has to decide the validity of the Act and the Rules framed under the Act including the age of retirement of outdoor and indoor employees of the concerned temples.

3. Until such time, it would be appropriate to permit employees such as the petitioner to continue in service so that their services could be terminated in terms of the judgment to be delivered by the Supreme Court in the pending appeal.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of in similar terms as W.P. No. 17274 of 2007, dated 16-2-2009 and the petitioners shall continue in service and their tenure may be determined in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court.