CANARA BANK Vs. DEVARAJU H

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before the main writ appeal could be taken up for consideration on merits, learned Counsel for the Respondent H. Devaraju raised a preliminary Objection that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge dated August 25, 2009 disposing of W.P. No. 31405/2004, having been passed by the learned single Judge in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the instant, writ appeal was not maintainable. In order to support his aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the Respondent in the first instance placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment rendered by a 5 Judges' Bench of this Court in Gurushanth Pattedar v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and Anr., 2005 ILR(Kar) 2503. Referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned Counsel for the Respondent invited our attention to the conclusions drawn at paragraph 4. Paragraph 4 of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench is being extracted hereunder:

(2.) It is not necessary for us to deal with the conclusions rendered in the later two judgments on account of the fact that the later two judgments only approved the conclusions recorded by this Court in Gurushanth Pattedar v. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and Anr. (supra). It is therefore, imperative for us to determine the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent on the observations recorded in paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment (already extracted herein above).

(3.) In order to assail the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondent, learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court, to the fact that the Respondent had not approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 31405/2004 to assail the award of the Labour Court, but had approached this Court to assail the punishment order inflicted on the Respondent by the Appellant Canara Bank. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that this Court has no supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the activities of the Canara Bank, and as such, the writ petition filed by the Respondent which was disposed by the learned single Judge (vide order dated August 25, 2009) could not be deemed to have been disposed of in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that W.P. No. 31405/2004 must be deemed to have been filed and decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.