High Court Karnataka High Court

Basavaraj vs The Block Development Officer on 20 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj vs The Block Development Officer on 20 March, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh


T}-IE HIGH COURT (3? KARNA’I’A.KA EH’ BA1\§G:%l-()RE
Dated this the 28″‘ day uf March, 2069

Befere

HIE Haswazg gm: JSZSTYCE HULG’1>L4§I c; R4w.;3E::;H_,’,.jj ;_. A’

Between:

Sri Basavamj SE0 Naniundaiah
39 yrs, Fifa if 4,5134, 3* Road _ ~
K R ‘Hagar, Mysere District ” _ r. & ‘Tfiétitiogzer

{By Sri K Gevinéaraj, Adv.) V

And:

Bficrck 1}.’/\?§.f:1(}I3II!%3I’lfl:§’1’fi<:;6i".' * M . .
New re»-ciesi'gtxeit¢<i as Ex:é§é.:1tiiza4C:ffi¢c:

Taluk Pancha}';3t1i, K "– _ V' "

Mysere Distrirtt’ . . ” Responders!

(By Sri Visirwanaffi’ _

‘ ;. “T}3i,s._VWrirAFe:£itit3n is fried uniier at.226f22? czf the Canstiiuiieri

W:-it Petition 33713/ 2003 (1,. ~f: _

praymgg id q13::3h”ih;§~a,§¥:*ar”é dated 3.3.2:1<":2 — azmaxuze L in Ref. 251993 ':33; 'fire:

Lab011rT3fe

V 4 P¢tiii0:1 coming on far Heafing this day, the Gear”: made
‘ ‘ ~ jv ‘ ~ _ __t§i»ic failewizfgg :

GREEK

Peiiiien 5% $723! the workman being aggrievsé by the rejectien sf

V’ ~ _4 : Refe.rz:nce 251998 by the Labcaur Cauré, Mysare by its ardm’ éated 8.3.2€}i}2;.

5.9″

According to She werrkman, he was serving in the ceiiegg

:09}; from 25.31.1994 continuously tiii 30,6.1996 at K R

ground thai his sexvices came to be tennL:r2’3tei%. withoui fi5i3′;:g*2*»;ing’.Vt11};=;.

procedure under 3.25 F ef the {ndustria} I§)is;;i¥a2tesQ:’.’_.?§i:fv, .’

On such reference, the Labour Couri h’£iiz§§ng tA}.’1′:i’€ t31£’:_V1′:€’3j’3t}:’2AT1f:s’3’€§2’i?.T~i;’§ [mi ” V

pmved to be an industry, rejectegi the retére1;i€;’e._ Hgwevér; ‘*:>siI’;i1¢AV:;ej$ctir;g, it
was also 0? the View that the v:”‘Wi)f§€trI2:§’i g complete 240 days

cmxtinuously as such, he, cannot ;wai%.tha p1′:1;e.:;ti§$ii $.35}? ef the Act.
Heard the_r:er§,*1,3ei3L@res5jj&fi;;;g..;ite «paiities. .’
It is scr¢1&~in:;.§;ig:”.a: strf t§i’e aiwa:1′<l' aii%:.:::3§,h the Labour Court has taken
nets of the fact that i%§i;i"!7§?0i'i:ed fmm 2.11.1994 tat} iast date cf

Elma 1996 and 31:31; fir;-53% is*o%§:ed iitfle more than 249 days, stating ihai

he has §:a§ztinao1i$£'3r_.§y appmchiateé.

k $9 %t The Workman has proved that the provisicms sf the

V ‘Indnstriai Dispute Act can be made applicahifi and that he has war}-wad for

W

eniified ta :1 campansaiion of Rs.5£3,CH)fii~ which shafl be paid ‘_ti:§if::<;V"'

months.

Petition is a:;::rding,Iy, ailowed.

An