KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. versus K. THANGAPPAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 783 · Decided: 04-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-.--
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
K. THANGAPPAN AND ANR. 
APRIL 4, 2006 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-Exercise 
of, in case of delay!/ aches on part of petitioner-Held: In case of inordinate 
delay on the part of petitione1; High Court not to intervene and grant relief 
in exercise of its writ jurisdiction-Delay and !aches. 
B 
c 
In January, 1979, appellant-Corporation and workmen arrived at a 
settlement scheme for confirmation of nominal muster roll workmen. 
Respondent-workman did not report for duty since February, 1979 and 
accordingly his name was removed from nominal muster roll. In October, 
1997, he made representations for providing employment. Appellant refused D 
to consider his request as the matter was 20 years old. Thereafter respondent 
filed writ petition praying for direction to consider him for employment which 
was allowed by Single Judge. Writ appeal filed by appellant was dismissed on 
the ground that settlement clearly provided that as and when vacancy would 
arise, the workman would be appointed. Hence the present appeal. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. For nearly 2 decades respondent No.I-workman had remained 
silent. Even in the representations made in 1997 and 1998 there was no 
reference to the representations claimed to have been made in 1982 and/or F 
1989. Even if that would have been made there was considerable delay even in 
making the representations. There is no dispute that mere making of 
representations cannot justify a belated approach. 1786-Cj 
2. Delay or !aches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by 
the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article G 
226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to 
invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on 
the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the 
lapse of time and other circumstances causes prejudice to the opposite party. 
783 
H 
784 
SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS 
[2006] 3 S.C.R. 
A Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the 
discretion of the Court. [786-D, El 
Durga Prasad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, AIR (1970) 
SC 769 and State of Orissu v. A run Kumar, AIR (1976) SC 1639, relied on. 
B 
Lindsay Pe1role11111 Compuny v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd etc., (1874) 5 
P.C. 221; Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Courts, AIR (1967) SC 1450; 
Muhurm;htru Stu IL' Roud Trunsport Corporation v. Ba!ll'anl Regular .lvfotor 
Service, AIR (1969) SC 329; R.N. Bose v. Union of India, AIR (1970) SC 
470; State of Jf.P. v. Nandlal, AIR (1987) SC 251; K. V. Raja lakshmiah v. 
C State ufMysore, AIR (1967) SC 973; State of Orissu v. P. Samantaraj, AIR 
(1976) SC 1617 and ONCJC ltd. and Anr. v. Shyama/ Chandra Bhowmik, 
[2006[ 1 sec 337, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3726/2006. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11. 1999 of the Karnataka High 
Court at Bangalore in W.A. No. 684711999. 
S. Ganesh, Pratap Venugopal, M/s. Jhuma Bose, E. Venu Kumar and 
Mis. K.J. John & Co. for the Appellants. 
E 
Bharat Sangal, San jay R. Hegde, Anil K. Mishra and A. Rohen Singh 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legailty of the 
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding 
F the view of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to appoint 
respondent No. l (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') in an appropriate 
vacancy in terms of Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 29.1.1979. 
G 
H 
Factual position in a nutshell is as under: 
Respondent No. I was working as a nominal muster roll workman with 
the appellant No. I- Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (In short "Corporation"). 
On 29.1.1979 a settlement was arrived at in terms of Section 12(3) of the 
Industrial Disputes Act. 194 7 (in short the 'Act'). Clause 4 of the Settlement 
which is relevant reads as follows: 
"Cusuul labour:~Casual workmen who have worked for a period of 
-
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION LIMITEDv. K. THANGAPPAN[PASAYAT, J.J 785 
not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months are A 
agreed to be brought on monthly establishment from the first of the 
following month effective from I. I 0.1978, subject to availability of 
vacancies. The surplus workmen, if
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.