IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. EANGEEéEECjj*;f.
DATED THIS THE o4"'Emx oE_guNE,j"20QsE'
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JusTIéEa$.AEDfiL,NAEEEE»_H5
w.p. No 15791 or §0Q6{LK)
BETWEEN
1 KARNATAKA sEETE:EOA§jTEA&sPdRET7'
CORPORATIONg;' *, :~* *.E!*»m,
cENTEAL--9EE:gEs*_EK%_ " ?' .
BANGALCREE",
REP B? TEE_cfijEE QAW OEEECER
2 *?HE"EIVISIONEEECQEEEQLLER
K.s.R;T.C ' *
MYSQRE CITE,DIV:sréN
MESORE. "
... PETITIONERS
{E§ Egi gas E SANJEEV*Adv.)
V'*»AND :E
.E*_ 3&3 ANTHONY RAJ
'vV's£Q RAYAPPA SINCE DECD BY HIS LRS
-11 EM? ARULSAGAYR MARY
'ff2"'vILoLET SONIA
" 3 SOPHIA
4 GAVASKAR
él
5' %fl!7?flflV
Wife &Children of late Sri Anthony Raj
No. 2 to 5 are minors, rep by their
mother Smt Arulsagaya Mary and all are
rfat Sulluvadi, Metagaili post, Kollegsl;,tIfl"
Taluk. u
... R§3?0NfiENTsjr"
THIS W.P. Is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226'AMDf,'z~
227 or THE CONSTITUTION 'OF INDIA PRAYING g"
To:cALL FOR RECORBS or THE PRQCEEDINGS opgwsa £
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR; =coURT, '.Mys0RE"
PERTAINING TO I.I.D.NO.l74/2OQ2¢_ WHICH HRS
CULMINATED IN ITS AWARE QT. 2T;4go6 VIBE ANX«C
AND QUASH THE AWARD »or_ IHE< LABOUR COURT,
MYSORE DT. 27.4.06 jv'! 2§sSEbg IN
I.I.D.NO.174/2062.:VIDE~ANX~C;_IN so EAR AS IT
DIRECTS PAYMENT go: sog.}sACKwAeEs TO THE
REsPoNDENTs;"-a"
This petitiofi comthg on for preliminary-
hearing this Itday,*t the’ court made the
following; ‘ * ‘ A ”
tt§nh*this “ease, the petitioners have
1r*challehqea the order passed by the Preskflng
_ officer ‘T Labour Court, Mysore in
‘,xf:.I§b-§a3I74/2002 dated 27.4.2006 whereby
».sthe: t§Labour Court has directed the
hefpstitioner/Corpsration to pay to the
hrrespondents (legal rpresentatives of
the deceased Anthoni Raj) 50% of the
%
baokwages from the date of his dismissal_tilip
the date of his death.
2. The respondents are ithe 7wife handiif
children of one Rnthoni”R%§§ hnthoni Raj had
been working as fa Qonduotor i’uith$€ the
Corporation. Disoioiinaryfdiofooeedings was
initiated against ianehgfiiggaaj fang it is
alleged that ba:had reoainod ufi;authorisedly
absent fromdia;iaiaé8d§i1ifl§,i.1998. He denied
the charge. ifiomasfiia enquiry was ordered in
which the ,enquirg “officer found that the
,«oharqéa is proved._ The enquiry report was
raodeptedd«tgf*_the Corporation and Eva was
dismissed Sarah’ service on 27.2.2002. This
i, dismissal gave rise to an industrial disoute
=n;and’the deceased workman filed an application
hr “under Sec.10(4~A) of the industrial Disputes
h”»_u”Aot before the Labour Court. The Labour Court
found that the domestic enquiry held by the
Corporation was fair and proper. During the
pendency’ of the matter, Anthoni Raj passed
K.
away (on 4.11.2003). The respondents came on
record as legal representatives of JtheWa
deceased Ahthoni Raj. The Labour Codrtdhohfreh
consideration emf the anaterialwrxi record» hast’
allowed the claim petition inypartl The award 7b
of the Labour court is as dhderi”.
” The Claims petition is partly
allowed. .vvThe#”-. seeend7_fr party
corporation} is Vaireetea dtow*pay to
tN§~’*lé%al\f–héifsd””of “” deceased
Anthonyrajhi5§%l”haek#ages from the
date of his eieeieee; till the date
of his death} The amounts payable to
.fihey€ legal” ~heirs ———- of deceased
*;”hhthonyraj shall be appropriated
“_’eqhallfi among them. Second party is
Adirected to pay to the legal heirs
of” the deceased Pmthonyraj, the
x’retiral benefits that were due to
dthe deceased and his family.”
f3. 1 have heard Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned
h*h””counsel appearing for the Corporation. Though
the respondents are served, they have remained
unmrepresented.
and circumstances has granted 50% of .tfiég
backwages. I «£3 not find any nwrit in ffii@v ”
writ petition. It is accordingly dismiééeflg Noii’
costs.
Psg* ._