CHANDRAIAH Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR BANGALORE, RURAL DISTRICT, NO. 1702., ATHANI COMPLEX, PRAKASH NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010 AND THE SUB REGISTRAR CHANNAPATANA, RAMANAGARAM, DISTRICT :RAMANAGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the order dated 7th April 2011 passed in W.P. No. 11011/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to lumpsum compensation of Rs.30,000/ - to the appellant within three months from the date of the order and denied the relief of reinstatement or any other consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed this appeal in so far as the denial of reinstatement or any other consequential benefits to the appellant.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows : The appellant claims that he was appointed as a daily wager in Group 'D' category in the Office of the Sub -Registrar, Channapatna Taluk on 01.09.1992. he continued in the service till 20.11.1996. When his services were discontinued without any reason he filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in No. 1129/1995. The same was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 33765 -766/1996 seeking absorption and to extend the benefit available in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same were disposed of on 18.12.1996. Thereafter, he filed another Application No. 7456/1996 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the order of termination of services. But the same was also dismissed. The appellant thereafter approached the Labour Department for a relief, under Reference was made by the Government under Section 10(1)(c) of the Act m Ref. No. 5/2007 before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court reject' l the reference on the ground that it is highly belated and the delay has not been explained. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the appellant filed Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge challenging the termination during the year 1996. The learned Single Judge mainly on the ground of delay rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after the termination of his services by the respondents he is not working anywhere and lost his employment opportunity. Therefore, some more amount of compensation may be awarded as he has net secured any employment after termination by the respondents.