B. SRINIVASA REDDY versus KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY AND DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
The writ petition by an unregistered association under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 is not maintainable, the Government has the power to make contractual appointments until further orders, and as the statute and rules do not prescribe a maximum tenure or mode of appointment for Managing Director, no violation or...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: B. Srinivasa Reddy; Respondent No.1: Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association; Respondent: State of Karnataka; Respondent No.4: Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 3/4.4.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 86/2006
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
- Legal Topics
- Contractual Appointment, Writ of Quo Warranto, Maintainability of Writ Petition, Unregistered Trade Union, Appointment at Pleasure of Government
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
B. Srinivasa Reddy
Appellant
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association
Respondent No.1
State of Karnataka
Respondent
Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board
Respondent No.4
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 3/4.4.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 86/2006
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the writ petition by an unregistered trade union is maintainable
- 2 Whether the Government has the power to appoint on contract basis until further orders
- 3 Whether Writ of Quo Warranto lies absent violation of statutory provision
Ratio Decidendi
The writ petition by an unregistered association under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 is not maintainable, the Government has the power to make contractual appointments until further orders, and as the statute and rules do not prescribe a maximum tenure or mode of appointment for Managing Director, no violation or illegality occurred in the appellant’s appointment. No writ of quo warranto lies absent statutory violation, and findings of legal malice were unsustainable.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Orders
- Division Bench judgment of High Court in Writ Appeal No. 86/2006 set aside.
- No order as to costs against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; liberty to refund costs if already paid.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment