THE MANAGEMENT OF SIDDHARTHA EDUCATION SOCIETY vs THE SECRETARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT


THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA


WRIT APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2024 (L-RES)

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 547 OF 2023 (L-RES)



IN WA No.1648/2024:

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGEMENT OF SIDDHARTHA


Digitally
signed by
PAVITHRA N
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka


EDUCATION SOCIETY

SSIT, MARALUR

KUNIGAL ROAD

TUMAKURU 572 105

BY ITS ASST. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADV.)
AND:

THE SECRETARY
TUMKUR DISTRICT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE
NON-TEACHING EMPLOYEES' UNION
C/O. CITU
RD
3 CROSS

2

NAZARABAD
TUMAKURU 572 101

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. L.MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADV. FOR CAVEATOR/
RESPONDENT NO.1)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER MADE IN WP NO.43422/2018 DATED 03.09.2024 BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND TO ALLOW THE SAID WRIT
PETITION NO.43422/2018 BY SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD
DATED 15.03.2018 IN ID NO.180/2013 ON MERITS.

IN WA NO. 547/2023

BETWEEN:

SIDDARTHA EDUCATION SOCIETY
S S I T COMPOUND
MARALUR
TUMKUR-572 105
REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
SHRI K.H.KHALANDAR PASHA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR H. M., ADV)

3

AND:

1. SHRI THIMME GOWDA
MECHANIC, CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT

2. SHRI T.L.NARASIMHA MURTHY
INSTRUCTOR, ELECTRICAL ENGG. DEPARTMENT

3. SHRI PRABHAKAR RAO
HELPER, MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT
SINCE DEAD BY LR'S
SMT.KAMALA RAO B.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
VENKATESHWARA NILAYA
MARALUR DINNE MAIN ROAD
NEAR ISMAIL NAGAR
MARALUR
TUMKUR-572 105

4. SHRI G. L.RAJENDRA KUMAR
MECHANICAL

5. SHRI JAYARAMAIAH C.
LIBRARY ASSISTANT

6. SHRI GANGAIAH
ATTENDER MECHANICAL

7. SHRI B. N.UMASHANKAR

4

S.D.A (OFFICER)

NO.1, 2, 4 TO 7 ARE REPRESENTED BY
SHRI K. R. NAYAK
PRESIDENT
TUMKUR DISTRICT ENGINEERING
INSTITUTIONS AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
UNION (R), M.G.ROAD
TUMKUR-572 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4 (VK
RETURNED ON O/O)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W. P.
No.10791/2012, CONSEQUENTLY GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT THE

WRIT PETITION

THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 08.09.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

5

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

Writ Appeal No.547/2023 arises from the order dated
24.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.10791/2012, confirming the award dated
29.06.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in
I.D.No.197/2006 concerning the claims of 7 non-teaching
employees for time-bound advancement, promotion and
encashment of earned leave.
Writ Appeal No.1648/2024 arises from the order dated
03.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.43422/2018, confirming the award dated
15.03.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in
I.D.No.180/2013 concerning the claims of 32 non-teaching
employees for promotion based on seniority, time-bound
advancement, leave encashment and additional increment
under the Family Planning Scheme.

2. We have heard Shri. Muralidhar. H.M, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal
No.547/2023, Shri. Chandrakanth R. Goulay, learned

6

counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal
No.1648/2024 and Shri. L. Muralidhar Peshwa, learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 in Writ Appeal
No.547/2023 and for the respondent in Writ Appeal
No.1648/2024.
3. In W.A. No.547/2023, the dispute raised by the
Union on behalf of the seven non-teaching employees was,
upon failure of conciliation referred by the State Government
by order dated 23.09.2006, for adjudication under Section
10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as
I.D.No.197/2006. The Industrial Tribunal allowed the
reference and directed the appellant to extend to the
employees the benefits flowing from the Government Orders
marked as Exhibits 'W10' to 'W14' and 'W16, relating to
time-bound advancement and additional increment to
Government servants who continue in service for more than
20 years. The learned Single Judge held that the joint memo
accepted in Writ Appeal No.1497/2003 settled the earlier
dispute concerning pay scales and arrears, but did not cover
the subsequent reference dated 23.09.2006 concerning the

7

claims of seven employees for time-bound advancement,
promotion and encashment of earned leave. It was noticed
that the Management had not disputed the applicability of
the Government Orders in its counter-statement before the
Tribunal or in the writ petition and raised that objection only
during arguments. The learned Single Judge held that time-
bound advancement was an incident of service and that the
employees satisfying the prescribed criteria could encash
accrued earned leave. The writ petition was accordingly
dismissed.
4. In W.A. No.1648/2024, the dispute raised by the
Union on behalf of the 32 non-teaching employees was after
failure of conciliation referred by the State Government on
26.11.2013, for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act and registered as I.D.No.180/2013.
By award dated 15.03.2018, the Industrial Tribunal allowed
the reference and directed the appellant to extend the
claimed benefits with interest at 9% per annum from the
respective due dates. The learned Single Judge noticed that
the Governing Body had accepted the service rules on

8

28.08.2010. It was also noticed that under the joint memo
in Writ Appeal No.1497/2003, the Management had
accepted pay-scale parity with corresponding Government
posts from 01.06.1997. Finding no material justifying the
denial of time-bound advancement, promotion or
entitlement for encashment of earned leave and relying on
the order passed in Writ Petition No.10791/2012 concerning
similarly placed employees, the learned Single Judge held
that the employees satisfying the applicable criteria could
not be denied those benefits or the additional increment
under the Family Planning Scheme. The writ petition was
accordingly dismissed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
both the appeals contends that as an unaided private
institution, the appellant is not bound by the Government
Orders concerning service benefits applicable to Government
servants. It is submitted that the joint memo in Writ Appeal
No.1497/2003 concerned parity in pay scales alone and did
not establish entitlement to time-bound advancement,
promotion or leave encashment.

9

6. In Writ Appeal No.547/2023, it is contended that
Government Orders marked as Exhibits 'W10' to 'W14' and
'W16' were applied without either the Industrial Tribunal or
the learned Single Judge examining whether those Orders
applied to the Institution, whether the seven employees
satisfied the conditions for the benefits claimed, or whether
similarly placed employees had received those benefits.
7. In W.A. No.1648/2024, the learned counsel for
the appellant disputes the reliance placed on by the
Industrial Tribunal on the Karnataka Educational Institutions
(Terms and Conditions of Service, etc.) Rules, 1997, which it
says had not come into force and on the Karnataka Private
Educational Institutions (Discipline and Control) Act, 1975,
which it says was inapplicable to the Institution and had
stood repealed. It is further submitted that the Government
Orders marked as Exhibits 'W6' to 'W10' and the Karnataka
Civil Services (Time-Bound Advancement) Rules, 1983, do

not apply to its employees. It is further submitted that the
Government pay prescriptions under its Service Rules are
subject to modification and adoption by the Governing Body,

10

while promotions are governed by its Cadre and Recruitment
.
Rules It is contended that the appellant's service Rules were
not produced before the Industrial Tribunal and that the
Union neither established employee-wise qualifications,
seniority and eligibility nor furnished the documents required
to claim the family-planning increment. It is further
contended that the Tribunal misconstrued MW-1’s evidence
about financial constraints and the Union’s claim of
approximately Rs.69.35 lakh was unsupported and that the
award of 9% interest was unjustified. It is further contended
that the learned Single Judge did not adequately consider its
objections, request for remand or afford it a reasonable
opportunity to respond to the submissions made by the
Union.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Union in Writ Appeal No.1648/2024 quantified
the arrears at Rs.69,35,151.87 and contends that the
appellant furnished neither a counter-calculation nor
documents establishing its alleged financial constraints. It is
submitted that MW-1 acknowledged the earlier order

11

concerning basic pay and allowances on par with
Government employees and stated that the Institution could
meet the demands if its financial position improved. The
respondent also relies on the appellant’s Service Rules,
accepted by its Governing Body on 28.08.2010 and the joint
memo in Writ Appeal No.1497/2003 concerning Government
pay scales. It is contended that both the Tribunal and the
learned Single Judge considered the evidence and afforded
the parties adequate opportunity.
9. In Writ Appeal No.547/2023, it is contended that
the joint memo accepted in W.A.No.1497/2003 settled an
earlier dispute concerning pay scales, city compensatory
allowance, interim allowance and other allowances of the
non-teaching staff generally. The present reference concerns
the distinct claims of seven specified workmen for time-
bound advancement or promotion and encashment of
earned leave. Those claims were not covered by the earlier
reference or settlement. It is therefore submitted that the
Industrial Tribunal rightly considered the claims and that no
interference with its award is warranted.

12

10. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents in both the appeals has placed reliance on the
following decisions:-
•
Secretary, Mahatama Gandhi Mission and
Another v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena and Others
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 449;


•
Bharat Bank Limited v. Employees of Bharat
Bank Limited reported in 1950 SCC 470;


•
K. Krishnamacharyulu and Others v. Sri
Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering
and Another reported in (1997) 3 SCC 571 , and


•
Biligiri Education Society (R) and Another v.
D. Krishna Murthy by order dated 14.06.2024
passed in RFA No.507/2019 (RES).


11. We notice that a dispute had been raised earlier
by the non-teaching staff of the appellant - Institution
seeking the payment of wages, DA and all other allowances
and benefits like HRA, CCA, increments, etc. on par with the
employees working in Government Technical Institutions.
The said reference numbered as ID No.11/1990 was
considered by the Labour Court, Bengaluru and an award
was passed on 02.12.1994, holding that the non-teaching

13

employees are entitled to pay and allowances in the regular
time scale of pay from the date on which they completed
one year of service in the second party Management and
that they are entitled to receive DA, CCA, HRA and other
allowances, on par with non-teaching staff of Government
Technical Institutions. The appellant challenged the same in
Writ Petition No.12937/1995.

12. The Writ Petition was partly allowed and the
award of the Labour Court was modified, granting the non-
teaching employees benefit of pay scale at par with
corresponding employees in Government Education
Institutions. It was further held that the question of equal
post held by non-teaching staff with those in Government
Institutions would require a comprehensive study and
directed the exercise to be carried out within a period of four
months. The workmen were held entitled to receive DA,
HRA, CCA and other admissible allowances at par as per the
terms of their appointment and the arrears were directed to
be paid from 01.01.1998. The non-teaching employees'
Union filed an appeal as Writ Appeal No.1497/2003 which

14

was disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo recording the
agreement of the appellant herein to pay the pay scales to
the non-teaching staff with effect from 01.06.1997.
However, in the award which was challenged before the
learned Single Judge, the pointed question whether the
employees of the appellant are similarly situated had been
considered by the Labour Court and was answered as
under:-
"14. When this being the law above discussed, it
cannot be said that the Government orders/Notifications
are not applicable to the employees/workmen of the
Private Educational Institutions. Rule-5 of KEI Rules 1997
discussed above stipulates regarding whatever the scale
of pay applicable to the employees in the Government
Educational Institution same are applicable to the
employees of other Institutions also. Therefore there
shall not be any discrimination between the employees in
the Government Institutions and in the private
Educational Institutions. If there is any discrimination
between them, that is in violation of Article-14 of the
Constitution of India, because who ever the employees
working in the Private Educations Institutions are
imparting and discharging their duties as that of
Government employees in Government Institutions. In
the Institutions run by the Government and in the
Institution run by the private Institution, the aim of both
is in making the society in progress particularly in

15

imparting education. Therefore the employees working in
the private educational institutions cannot be made
discrimination in comparing with the employees working
in the Government institutions. Therefore in this regard,
the evidence of the second party management given
through MW.1 is to be considered."

13. The learned Single Judge considering the
contentions in the writ petition had also held that there was
absolutely no justification for denying the benefits of pay
scale and other benefits to the employees. The relevant
provisions of the bye-law of the appellant specifically reads
as under:-
"Chapter I
1. All appointments in the institute shall normally be
made after due publicity and on the
recommendation of the staff selection committee
subject to approval of governing Body.
x x x x x
4. Scales of pay and allowances shall be as prescribed
by AICTE/STATE Government from time to time as
modified and adopted by the governing Body.
x x x x x
7. a) Every person appointed against a permanent
post shall be on probation for a period of two years

16

which may be extended by the governing Body by
one more year at its discretion.
b) It is open to Governing Body to discharge the
incumbent from duties during the period of
probation, if found unsuitable for the post.
c) The Period of Probation shall count for increment
if found satisfactory bye the management.

x x x x x

Chapter IV

x x x x x

c. For Non-Teaching posts the selection committee
shall as constituted by management. Qualification,
experience, Scale of pay etc shall be as prescribed
by state government from time to time."

14. It is an admitted fact that the respondents were
non-teaching employees of the appellant who is the
Management conducting Private Educational Institution. It is
also an admitted fact that the Bye-Laws and the Service
Rules relating to the appellant specifically provided that
Scales of Pay etc, for non-teaching posts shall be as
prescribed by the State Government from time to time. In
Writ Petition No.12937/1995, the question considered was
whether the respondents - workmen are entitled to pay

17

scales with other benefits as paid to the non-teaching staff
in Government Technical Institutions from the year 1979.
Writ Petition No.12937/1995 was disposed of on the basis of
a joint memo stating that the benefits of pay scale had been
granted. However, the present dispute was referred to the
Industrial Tribunal on the specific question, which read in
I.D.180/2013 and I.D.197/2006, are as follows:-
In I.D.180/2013
"1. Whether the first party union i.e. Secretary,
Tumkur District Technical Institute Non-
Teaching Employees Union C/o CITU Office,
rd
3 cross, Nazarabad Tumkur is justified in
raising the dispute on behalf of 32 workmen
mentioned in Annexure-1 mentioned below
demanding 1) benefit of promotion on the
basis of seniority, 2) Time bound
advancement, 3) Leave encashment and 4)
additional increment in respect of family
planning benefit from the second party M/s.
Siddhartha Education Society, S.S.I.T,
Maraluru, Kunigal Road, Tumkur?"

In I.D.197/2006

"1. Whether it is justified that the Management of
Sri Siddhartha Unnatha Maha Vidyalaya,
Tumakuru, has denied time-bound scales,
earned leave encashment, and promotion

18

benefits to the applicant workmen: 1) C.
Thimme Gowda, 2) T.L. Narasimha Murthy,
3) B. Prabhakarrao, 4) B.G. Rajendra Kumar,
5) C. Jayaramaiah 6) Gangaiah, 7) B.N.Uma
Shankar?"
15. After considering the contentions and the
materials placed on record, the Industrial Tribunal came to
the factual conclusion that the employees are entitled to
benefits of pay scale as well as other benefits at par with
employees of Government Technical Institutions. Though,
contentions to the contrary were raised before the learned
Single Judge, the aspect was considered in detail and it was
found that the Bye-laws of the Society specifically provided
for the grant of pay scale and other benefits on par with the
employees of Government Institutions.
16. In an intra-Court appeal, arising from such a
finding, we are of the opinion that the interference would be
called for only in a case where a findings of the Industrial
Tribunal and the learned Single Judge are completely
perverse or unreasonable so as to warrant such an
interference.

19

17. In the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, we are of the opinion that there is no material to
arrive at a conclusion that the findings of the learned Single
Judge or the Industrial Tribunal vitiate in any manner. In the
above view of the matter, we find no material to entertain
these appeals. The appeals fail and the same are accordingly
dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of in both the appeals.

Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
cp*