In mm HIGH coum' or KARHATAKA gr nmenom
nxmn Tms THE 10"' DAY or NOVEMBER 2008
PRESENT
THE Hormm HR. 9.13. nmaxanax. cam-* J_I_3§'Hl"'I ('3§.'.§ :'*-- .
AKD
ms nomnm MRJUBTICE é
Writ A_pI3ea_1 1-Io. xoosmf :1 %
Between:
Srzi Becrappa _ V-~
Son of Sri Munishamfifwa " '
Aged about 5},--§,,*ea;{'é>;~VA_ ._ .
Previously wzzvxrlcingxasj We ''?VeI'-- ' é 3.
Myscre Spinxiirxg, \Rh:-,avijifg_'8n V
Manuf2acturing~Mi}1s ' V' V'
Residing at Escciits SL~:cI1ap}1a " ,
Building, Jahzkur Road ' - '
.
E~§I2l.g*a}(}I’€’2«–.- 5é5{} 69.2 “”” .. Appellant
Advocate for M/s Subba Rao 85 C-0.,
.V AdvocateS)__VA«
‘ Mana,ig£2mcnt < Ji'Myso1vc
Weaving 8:. Manufactzming
' merged with the Minerva Mills)
rcp1'cs»e11ted by the General Manager
% % –MaTg:–1di Road
"~«. Ba11galore ~– 560 023 .. Respondent
Reference No.10} of 3.992 and the Labour Court by Award dated
30.} 1.2004 allowed the Ieferenoe in part by holding that the
appeiiant was a casual labourer even on the date of termina*{i:en.. in
‘the year 1988. He hats} remained abeent
permission for a period of I 15 days in the year ‘
the year 1986, 140 days in the year 198?, 1;.
up to July 1988 without prior pergxxissioxieaxid ovf;
provisions of the Standing Oxders zipfiiieable t in V
View of the contixmoue abse11<§e._of '" nd party
had no aitemative but to texmihate However, having
regard to Workman that he was
suffering ifliiess refused employment Without
affording a explain his absence, the order
set aside. in the meanwhile, since
had become stick and had stopped
the " Court held that the question of
_. _:j'_ifs:ix_1$'katcme1ii; fioes not arise and having regard to the facts and
of the ease aflowed the reference in part and
V. to pay 50 per cent of the back-wages to the workman, the
herein from 18.07.1988 til} the date the second party
\2
closed its manufactming activities together .'
compensation in acxtordance with Law. Being ssicit ..
Award passed by the Labour Court, E?afiVgaiot_e"–,by'
30.11.2004, Writ petition No.7952 of 2007 bltvets iii;-3;; Abc£m{e».'t£r:is"«.,
Cotsrt wherein this Court by order the V
Writ petition was filed on tieloy of «more» two
years and the delay and lacivaesiton ttiie petifioner was
not satisfactofily explained the Writ
petition. Being the Writ petition,
the writ petitionert has V
3. There of in filing the appeal. We have
hes}-so leargjged cac>unsiéit- appellant both on merits and on
dekaytv the averment made in the applicafion and
the of the application it is clear that the
[V ‘Vv.o.i?e:ment i3.<xade"in-tfize application would only explain the delay of
t " §1éi3'$ pteferring the writ appeal and the said delay is sought
on the gound of ilhaess and no material
is produced to substantiate the contention that the
was not well from 30.08.2007 on which day the certified
\__).S
copy of the order of the learned Single Judge was obtained am! as
to why the appeal could not be prefened be-fore
Acooniingly, we hokl that no suificient cause is
condoning the delay. On merits, V'
submitted that the Labour Court was not .'
56 per cent of the back-wages _baclA<?wege_§TV"ie have " V L»
been awarded. According to;_.f:l1e to
the conduct of the in refixsing
employment to the apggellant the learned
Single Judge Wag; Writ petition on
the ground iof which had been satisfactorily
explained. [
4. have considered the contentions of the
and scrutinised the material on
record “tf1e,ji.~1dgement and awani passed by the Labour
am; the passed by the learned Single Judge. The
~ Sixlzgieldlxdge has considered the averment made in the
in para 4 of the writ petition and has held that the
ayexment would not in any way expiain the inordinate delay
K?’
and lachcs of more than 2%. years in filing the writ petition. Thr:
Award. was passed by the: Labour Court: on 30.11.2004 the
Writ petition was fikcd on 20.08.2007 and the: deiay had” hat: _ V
explainitd by assigning satisfactory mason 31:)’ Th ‘
was made out in explaining the delay xV’C’€:
any reason to differ with the View the
Judge. Accordingly, the writ abo
on mg ground ofde1ay_ W –
2 ‘ ~ ;No.