Smt.Jayamma v. The Management of Mescom

NC:(2025:KHC:38109( WP(No.(7900(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

NDDATED(THIS(THE(22 (DAY(OF(SEPTEMBER,(2025(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(7900(OF(2025((S-RES)( BETWEEN:(( SMT.JAYAMMA,

W/O,LATE,VENKATESH, AGED,BOUT,60,YEARS, RESIDING,AT,KONANAHALLI,VILLAGE, KASABHA,HOBLI,,MANDYA,TALUK,

MANDYA,DISTRICT-571104., …PETITIONER, (BY,SMT.,MANJULA,D.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:( THE,MANAGEMENT,OF,MESCOM, PANDAVANPURA, MANDYA,DISTRICT-571434,

REPRESENTED,BY,ITS, EXECUTIVE,ENGINEER., Digitallytisignedtiby …RESPONDENT,HEMALATHA0A Location:0HIGH (BY,SRI.,DEVARAJU,H,V.,,ADVOCATE), COURTOF KARNATAKA , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENTS, TO, RELEASE, THE, ARREARS, OF, SALARY,, PENSION,,PENSIONARY,BENEFITS,WITH,ALL,CONSEQUENTIAL, BENEFITS, OF, THE, DECEASED, HUSBAND, OF, THE, PETITIONER, AND, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT, TO, CONSIDER, THE, REPRESENTATION, DATED:, 26.09.2024, WHICH, IS, PRODUCED, AS,ANNEXURE-F,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 H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

¶1In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for following relief/s: "(i) ISSUE, a writ of mandamus or any other direction directing the respondents to release the arrears of salary, pension, pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits of the deceased husband of the petitioner;

(ii) ISSUE, a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the respondent to consider the representation dated:26-09-2024 which is proceed as Annexure-F.

(iii) Grant such other order or direction as deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.."

¶2The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband, Late Venkatesh, was appointed as a Lineman in the establishment of the respondent. While he was in service, he was terminated from the service. Being aggrieved by the same, the husband of the petitioner

challenged the termination before the Labour Court in Ref.No.90/2008. The Labour Court by order dated

11.11.2011, passed the following order: "1. Reference is allowed in part.

¶2Dismissal order passed by Second Party is hereby set aside. Second Party is hereby directed to reinstate First Party to the same post last held by him at the time of dismissal from service.

¶3It is made clear that First Party is not entitled to any back wages.

¶4It is open to the Second Party to conduct Domestic Enquiry, against First Party for his misconduct of unauthorized absence, strictly in accordance with the regulation No.11 and 11(A) of Karnataka Electricity Board Employees Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal Regulations, 1987 and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶5Office to send copy of the award in duplicate to the Labour Department, Bangalore for publication. After receipt of copy of publication, office to forward copy of award to the concerned Civil Court that may be specified by the first party for the purpose of

execution as provided under the amended provision contained in Sec.11(10) of I.D.Act, as if it were to be a decree of the said court. Intimate Government."

¶6Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court, the respondent-Management filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.44295/2012. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner's husband died. Since the respondent-Management did not take any steps to bring the legal representatives on record in W.P.No.44295/2012, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee of the respondent-Management, filed a representation dated 26.09.2024, vide Annexure-F, seeking release of the pensionary benefits in respect of her husband. As the representation vide Annexure-F dated

26.09.2024 has not been considered by the respondent, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶7Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that if this Court grants some reasonable time, the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-F will be considered, in accordance with law.

¶8In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶9Respondent-Management is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 26.09.2024 vide Annexure-F, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 80