CAUVERY HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL vs. SMT THULASAMMA

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

WRIT PETITION NO.11771 OF 2017 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN: CAUVERY HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, HEBBAL VILLAGE, HEBBAL POST, K.R.NAGAR TALUK-571 602. MYSORE DISTRICT.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.P.SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. THULASAMMA, W/O SRI. MALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBAL EXTENSION, HEBBAL HOBLI AND POST, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. KUMARA K.G ., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD: 27.2.2017 PASSED ON I.A.NO.6 IN EXECUTION NO.468/2013 BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-N; AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 ORDER

In this writ petition the management of the school is calling in question the order dated 27.02.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-N, whereby the learned Principal District Judge, Mysuru, being the Ex Officio Education Appellate Tribunal has rejected its application in I.A.No.4 filed u/s. 47 of CPC seeking dismissal of Ex.P.No.468/2013 on the ground of maintainability. After service of notice the respondent employee having entered appearance through her counsel, resist the writ petition.

(a) the conduct of the petitioner management that the subject execution petition for enforcing the EAT order dated 02.07.2010 is itself

not maintainable is highly unconscionable inasmuch as it has also taken up a stand that the Management has already paid to the respondent employee a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees two lakh twenty thousand) only on 11.08.2010 in terms of the order in question;

(b) even the contention as to the very payment of Rs.2,20,000/- itself is doubtful inasmuch as in their affidavit dated 04.11.2019 filed pursuant to direction of this Court issued on 22.10.2019, the petitioner states that neither in the Acquaintance Register nor in Payment Register nor in the Income Tax Returns for the subject assessment year anything is mentioned about this amount having been paid to the respondent employee; strangely they state that the funds for making this payment were arranged with the help of the office bearers of petitioner’s institution and relatives; no material particulars as to which office bearer paid how much money, which relative made what contribution and on which date, are all militantly lacking; and,

(c) even the documents which the petitioner’s side has produced by way of Exhibits/Annexures to the writ petition do not generate confidence of the Court that any amount has ever been paid to the respondent employee who is an illiterate & poor lady; an inference from the conduct of the parties and natural course of events as provided u/s. 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn against the petitioner- Management that no amount is paid to the respondent-

4 employee and that the assertion of the petitioner to the contrary is untrue, if not false.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the respondent-employee. The Execution Court shall accomplish the execution within a period of eight weeks if necessary by taking the aid of police, and report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE