Smt. Prema v. The Mysore Sugar Company Limited

NC:(2026:KHC:5090( WP(No.(1375(of(2024( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

THDATED(THIS(THE(29 (DAY(OF(JANUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.T.(NARENDRA(PRASAD( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(1375(OF(2024((S-RES)( BETWEEN:(( ,

SMT.,PREMA, W/O,N,RAMA,MURTHY, AGED,ABOUT,60,YEARS,

R/AT,NO,225,M,TYPE, SUGAR,TOWN,,MANDYA,571402., …PETITIONER,

(BY,SRI.,MAHESH,A,S.,,ADVOCATE),

AND:(

, THE,MYSORE,SUGAR,COMPANY,LIMITED, BY,ITS,

MANAGING,DIRECTOR, MYSORE,SUGAR,COMPANY,LIMITED,, SUGAR,TOWN,,MANDYA-571402.,

Digitallytisignedtiby …RESPONDENT, MALATHI0CHALUVA (BY,SRI.,GIRIKUMAR,R.,,ADVOCATE), IYENGAR Location:0HIG H COURTOF , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, KARNATAKA AND,227,OF,THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,ISSUE, WRIT,TO,THE,RESPONDENT,TO,CONSIDER,THE,PETITION,OR, REPRESENTATION,DATED:,26.10.2023,VIDE,ANNEXURE-D,AND, TO,IMPLEMENT,ORDER,OF,THE,WRIT,PETITION,NO.12458/2013, (L-SER),DATED:,11.06.2018,AT,ANNEXURE-A,OR,RELEASE,THE, RETIREMENT, BENEFITS, OF, SRI, N, RAMA, MURTHY, IN, FAVOUR, OF,PETITIONER,AND,TO,HIS,FAMILY,MEMBERS,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 This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the respondent to consider the petition or representation dated 26.10.2023 vide Annexure-D and to implement order of the W.P.No.12458/2013 dated 11.06.2018 (Annexure-A) or release the retirement benefits of Sri N.Rama Murthy in favour of petitioner and to his family members."

¶2The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband, late N. Rama Murthy, was working in the respondent company as a Security Guard with effect from

25.06.1986. Due to certain ill-health, he remained absent from service, pursuant to which, disciplinary action was initiated by the respondent. An order of dismissal was passed against him on 20.05.2004.

¶3Aggrieved by the same, a dispute was raised before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru, in Reference

No.28/2011. The Labour Court, after considering the rival contentions, passed the impugned award dated

05.10.2012, altering the punishment and modifying it to one of compulsory retirement instead of dismissal.

¶4Being aggrieved by the said award, the legal representatives of late N. Rama Murthy filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.12458/2013, wherein this Court passed the following order: "6. Having arrived at the above conclusion in a normal circumstance, it would have also been appropriate for this Court to modify the punishment and direct reinstatement. However, in the instant facts as noticed, the workman has not only expired during the pendency of this petition, but he had attained the age of superannuation during the year 2011 itself much prior to the Award passed by the Labour Court. If that be the position, all that is necessary to be ordered at this point in time is to issue a direction to treat the continuity of service from 20.05.2004 till the workman had attained the age of superannuation so that the monetary benefits would be available to the petitioners.

Therefore, in that view, I am of the opinion that the Award is to be modified. The respondent is therefore directed to treat the period between 20.04.2004 and 2011 to be continuous to the benefit of the workman, reckon the consequential benefits in notional terms and fix the salary in that regard as on the date of superannuation, on taking into consideration the continuity of service, work out the terminal benefits payable and pay the said amount to the petitioners. The consideration in that regard shall be made and the amount shall be paid to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished."

¶5Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted representations vide Annexures B, C, and D. Despite the specific directions issued by this Court, the respondent has not implemented the order passed in W.P.No.12458/2013. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶6Since this Court had already issued directions in W.P.No.12458/2013 by order dated 11.06.2018, the same has attained finality. The respondent is therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of retirement benefits as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶7With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

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

CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50