STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NINGAPPA SATHYAPPA BANGARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has called in question the correctness of the order dated 7th January 2005 made in Writ Petition No. 33134 of 2003 by the learned single Judge of this Court.

(2.) THERE is a delay of 222 days caused in filing the appeal. The explanation offered for the delay is set out at paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. It is useful to refer to the statements made at paragraph 2 of the affidavit, which reads as hereunder : 2. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant in W. P. No. 33134 of 2003 on 7 -1 -2005. The certified copy of the order was forwarded by the Law Officer by his letter dated 13 -6 -2005, along with his opinion that the matter is a fit case for preferring a writ appeal. The file was placed before the Legal Cell. After perusal of the file, on 24 -6 -2005 the Head of the Legal Cell and the Ex -Officio Deputy Secretary to Government, Public Works Department has given his approval for issuance of the Government Order to prefer the writ appeal. The file was then sent to the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, who has given his approval on 25 -6 -2005 for issue of the Government Order to prefer the writ appeal. The file was sent to the Additional Secretary -1, Law Department, who has given his approval on 28 -6 -2005. The draft Government Order was prepared on 5 -7 -2005 and the Government Order came to be issued on 11 -7 -2005. The Government Order, along with the relevant papers was sent to the office of the Advocate General which received the same on 25 -7 -2005. The file was immediately put before the Law Officer for the purpose of drafting the writ appeal. In the meanwhile, the papers were given for typing and taking out xerox copies. The writ appeal was drafted by the Law Officer and after completing all the formalities, the appeal came to be filed before this Hon -ble Court.

(3.) FURTHER , even on merits, also, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. The only ground urged before the learned single Judge, as could be seen from the impugned order, was with regard to the rate of interest awarded by the Labour Court. The learned single Judge has found that, since the authorities had awarded 10% interest for the delay in payment of gratuity amount payable to the respondent, there was absolutely no justification for him to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. We do not find any error in the said conclusion reached by the learned single Judge. Therefore, in the light of the discussions made above, this appeal is also liable to be rejected on merits.