Supreme Court of India Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006 Equivalent citations: AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1581, 2006 AIR SCW 1828, 2006 (3) AIR KANT HCR 290, 2006 (2) ALL CJ 1284, 2006 (5) SRJ 475, (2006) 4 ALLMR 41 (SC), 2006 (2) UPLBEC 1552, 2006 (4) SCALE 56, 2006 (4) SCC 322, 2006 ALL CJ 2 1284, (2006) ILR (KANT) 3043, 2006 (4) ALL MR 41 NOC, (2006) 3 KANT LJ 505, (2006) 2 LABLJ 421, (2006) 2 LAB LN 864, (2006) 2 SCT 417, (2006) 4 SCJ 608, (2006) 3 SERVLR 27, (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1552, (2006) 3 SUPREME 370, (2006) 4 SCALE 56, (2006) 2 ALL WC 2021, (2006) 2 CURLR 736, (2006) 109 FACLR 724 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3726 of 2000 PETITIONER: Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd Through its Chairman & Managing Director and Anr RESPONDENT: K. Thangappan & Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/04/2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT & TARUN CHATTERJEE JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upholding the view of the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to appoint respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') in an appropriate vacancy in terms of Clause 4 of the Settlement dated 29.1.1979. Factual position in a nutshell is as under: Respondent No.1 was working as a nominal muster roll workman with the appellant No.1 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, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). Clause 4 of the Settlement which is relevant reads as follows: "Casual Labour Casual workmen who have worked for a period of not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months are agreed to be brought on monthly establishment from the first of the following month effective from 1.10.1978, subject to availability of vacancies. The surplus workmen, if any, will be kept on the waiting list and appointed as and when vacancies occur. In the case of workmen who are not provided with work during monsoon period, the number of days worked in two consecutive seasons will be counted to determine their eligibility". According to the appellants, the respondent did not report for duty since February, 1979 and accordingly his name was removed from the nominal muster roll. In October 1997, respondent No.1workman addressed a letter to the Corporation and sought employment as a Mason. The request was repeated on 17.1.1998 and thereafter in June, 1998. In reply, the appellantCorporation stated that since respondent No.1 was not working with the Corporation at the time of confirmation of other nominal muster roll employees and the matter was 20 years old, it would not be possible to consider the request for providing employment. On 18.8.1998 a writ application was filed before the Karnataka High Court praying, inter alia, for a direction to consider the writ petitioner for the post of Ist Class Mason. Corporation filed its reply pointing out that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. However, by order dated 18.8.1999 the writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge holding that it would be too much to expect a writ petitioner to retain copies of the communications that he had sent to the Corporation. Since the alleged acknowledgments produced had shown that some officers of the Corporation received the communications it would be desirable to accept the stand that representations were made and it would not be correct to say that the writ petitioner had slept over the matter for 18 years, as he was agitating the matter. The Writ Appeal filed by the Corporation was dismissed on the ground that Clause (4) of the Settlement clearly provided that as and when vacancy would arise, the workman would be appointed. That being the position, there was no scope for interference with the order of the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the appellantCorporation and its functionaries submitted that there was no evidence produced by the respondent to show that in 1982 and/or 1989 he approached the Corporation for employment. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that he sent representations it is clear that one was filed after three years and the other after 10 years. Significantly, in the representations sent in 1997 and 1998 there was no reference to socalled earlier representation, if any. This itself shows that there was no substance in the plea of respondent No.1 that he had been agitating the matter. In any event, making a representation is not sufficient for filing a belated writ petition. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.1workman submitted that the High Court had proceeded on equitable premises and no interference was c