IN THE man czoum" OF KARNATAHA AT BANGégi;Ol§:E:'.
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY 01;,' JIJLY 3
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR'. DEEPAK VERI-..{A',4--.5cTz§qG{:1-{IE1-*'gi'i:§;r::::g,
THE HOWBLE MR;.§1j:s*r;%cB:; A; S-..B(§F~'.fi._NNA
WRIT APPEAL NO.' A.3.1:'1_:'rV/ '{L:i'E$:s§}
BETWEEN ; \
THE SHANKARMTTAL £v%,£}T€}R £30., um.
ATmvARA:,NANaIeu.am-3 R'OAi)_
MANGALOR~E1'-- ' . ' f " '
REP. 32* MANAGING 'r::¢;x:./A1' NEAR PRIMARY HEALTH
" _ CENTRE, POST KLIMBLA
-wsaaaoz: DIST
KERALA STATE
" SR1 K CHARLEY D svuzux
SKO ELIAS D SGUZA fl
=.§:§-i
MAJCDR
R/AT KURUVERI HGUSE
CHIPPAR POST
VIP: BPPALA KASARGOD DIST
KERALA STATE
3 SR: K HENRY Ersouza
s/0 ELIAS D'S<I1L¥ZA
MAJOR'
R/AT KURUVER1 ;-1<;:L_.s=sx.:«',_.
CHIPPAR POST
VEA UPPALA _
KASARGOD DIST. KERAIA SfFé';'}'E.V "
4 saxmeepasmggxsuwa %
% V
NEAR GCiPAI,AKRIS'§-iNA~TERéPLE
KUMBLA F1-QS'._;*;" p 'a '
xAsAI§Go D" 'mé:;fr
KERALA S7i"A'!'.E' » __ =
5 SR1 P RAMAGHANDRP: BEAT
s/0 NARAYANA BI-iAT7--. "
AGE§D'MAJOR _ '
«_ Pg»N;::AgE HOUSE" _____
KANYANA AND VILLAGE
» :r.»s«s;.1::z.s*:'«, _
6 .sR1_f:* NAR_AYfa~I$I''
. ago' KBM <:zs:1=':rrIAR
MAdOR__' -,
, KANN.A'}'£ FARE HOUSE
POST BEKUR via UPPALA
V. KASARGOEI DIST. KERALA STATE
RESPONDENTS
T {By-»s:~i: SACHIN 13.5. ADV. FOR SR1 14.3.1, NATARAJ)
THIS APPEAL I8 FILED (1/8 4 <31? THE KARNA'?;PG{A « "
COURT A("}'T PRAYING TO SEE'? ASIDE THE ORDEI?_.P1kSSED IN
THE wan' PE'I'}T'IC)N No.26601/2001 {}ATE£!,O1/0%}/2(3€1'é.;;V»
This Appeal comm' g on for «. "
clay, DEEPAK VERMA, ACTING’
the following:
Heard Sli A I{cshaVva..V:%’I€3h:;é§_t, taqunscl for the
appellant and Sri for the
IBS1)OI1£i€31tS. ‘ H
2. The%k%a;ppenam%1§¢r§i;;k%::aa filed a wnit petitiorn mzdcr
A1’tic1es:§.é:2fi.& 22*: _ _df’i:he’r:o”ns5mfien of India chaflengtillg
‘ ,_t.1:;e bgéwfhe Labour court, Mangalcrre on
said award, the reference has beam
2 answérgd of the l’C$f)O1ldCl}tS*CH1I)l€3}f%3. They
” to be minstated on the post cm which
wtzrking togethcrr with continuity of service with
% from the. date of their rtzfilsal to Work an the
F” . fiat: of their actual rcinstatenzent. It is fimzhcr directed that
the sat} Carder he givt.-.):;1 eflbtzt to within two months.
ix”)/l
3. The learned Single Judge C€)11$id€’3i!’i11g M
firearm all angles came to the concluseixifi “tI1e::u?: t$*5as: my
illegality and perversity in the
the Labour Court and therefore
dismissed. Nmv, this ifltra *u_1’1dera 4 of
the Karnataka High Court },§.a”3′.$_’Vi.~VE}V:V’.:,’;«:f:’J:I3. the
same on variety of
4. iffiffifiiflfit g;i¥§§i11d’V:that has been urged
by the is that the perusai
of the impugruieci_ Vo:fler-by the learned Single Judge
Vvweuld fie has been assigned by him to
It has also been contended that there
V was’. placed by the appellant bef-are the
Labour indicate that in fact the workmen»
‘§efsg)6ndentVV’Nos. I to 6 hexein were employed by «me Sn’
ivhe was a Iesaee of the appellant to leak after the
V[ jjfialxfiirfless nuaning bus lines of the appellant for Puttur
n “Division. Our attaenticm has also been drawn to an
agreement said to have: been executed between the , V.
and the said Sri Sanjeeva.
5. As far as the Eat ground is :t1n (i<'1.»111;~t;
is true that no detailed fi:1d'm;g;e._V:V%':;»e;yc 'g;§§e;1 me
lcanmd Single Judge bug on and
circuzustanccs which was T11e learned
Single Judge has clahqaatcly (if tbs case
and thercafirsr «f¥.'AtV'§.j'»f;.II'l(i':':'i'*3l'{itl W35 iriiz-ta": fit case wherein any
intelfemnée was cavjlkaa" . pxwwded to dismiss the
petition. 'FheVi*ef{i:t'-1:, 'CEt=:,é:€,iisi4)n with application of nliud
.to the. cf tfié In fact, the Labeur Court. has
discussed each piece of evidence that
it and only thcmakr the rcfcmnoe was
amswefezi in of the workmen as mentioned hatsin
IIi"'{ri:w of the detailed discussitm made by the
it was not incumbent on the part 01' the
Single Judge ta have discussed the same evidcntw in
writ petition filed under Arficles 226 anti 227 of tht:
m4
appellant that the Labour Court has ngh' fly T' d'
agreement on which it was contended;
were not employ& by the agzpeilant }1av4$7._1:1'ot_ ''
aeotmzlance with law. This findiaog' also"
the Labour Court and thy has the
oonelusion that Sri Even
otherwise, a baIe_ flfiement dated
30.9.1991 which dedicate the same
is shown View the date of
refusal of. 1991. Further the Labour
Court has tendered before it and on
4… ‘the recorded a fiiildillg of fact. The
any perversity or error appaxent.
H ” heard the learned Counsel for the
appefleiitz fitted.’ efier perusal of the Ieooztia, we are of the
x V’ ejonehiegedvdopinion that no ease for interfelenoe against the
by the learned Single Judge or the award
T by the Labour Court was made out.
W
Thea appca} is devoid of merits and the same is I1¢1iéh_3}’~.V_
dismisst-.d. The amsmnt. dirmctfiri to be deptyszifrfi to .1.
of 50%: shall now be paid. to msgmndents No.
their entiflcuzenf. For the balance amL¢;1.xz31:.x;§m’i f
the respondents 311331 be at Iihryriytn eke-=_€:’iitc E12124
awcoxdance with law.
% Sci!-
_ Chief Iustics
Judge.