IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAi{A--'.' L' ~
(332031? BENCH AT GULBARGA: "' A
DATED THIS THE 23R» 13;xY"o1? ._mLY«
PRE$ENT .__ ' TJ A %
'}'HE HONBLE MR'.
i -
THE HONBLE MR. SWAMY
...---~-...._.--.-n
BETWEEN :
SiVisi<}n3i' 'C611tr;§l3.er'1"fV V ' _ "
Raichur D"ivision,.
Richur, Repmsented bj,{é:s"g
ChiefLaW Officer,'
Sarige Siaéan, Gtiiharga V
' _ _ 4' " Appeliant
(By~ Baztiawadagi, Advocate)
' §§_.NI):
' iv fiixace deceased by
.1E«1is"_I.iRf'sL"A_«
' ' " . " 'émahadevamma
' W/0 Paramanna
Agctdz 50 years
V 2. Mounesh S/or Paramarma,
Aged about 34 years,
\/
8. Basavara} S/0 Paxamarma
Aged about 3 1 years,
4». Mahantesh S/0 Paramanna, _
Aged about 26 years, "
5. Sharanamma D/0 Paramanna ~..
Aged about 24 years, ' ' A
Ail are resident ef Baxmigqfiifllage,
Tq. Lingasugur, flRai.r':h§1:1';- .__
1' ._ .. Respondents
THIS WA I~S"'EfI};ED:=__ U13 54 TEIF._..§(ARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT 1361 ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
66"' JUNE 2993 PA$3S3}€33r)VVIiS("I.;I:EZ;A;R.$ED»v§SINGEL JUDGE IN Wm
PETITION :._:}J0.7282giT20;{}§54{L~!§SRffC) ; WHEREBY CONFIRMED THE
AWARD 'PASSED LABOUR COURT AND
CONSEQUENTLY BE' y;m:«,n TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD
}§AssE1)_; Bé:'. '5:~i1"~,~ CO{}RT, GULBARGA IN KID
coming on for orders, this day,
eaomawgm. J, delivered the f01IoWiI1g:~
JUDGMENT
T “Heard Sri.Shz’vakumar Badawadagi, the learned
eeunsel for the appe1lant~C0rpora1:i0n. Though the delay is
not satisfactorily explained, dispeneing with issue of notice
\\-/
to the respondent, on the eondonation of delay as not
interferifig With the erder of the learned
have condoned the delay of 125 days in
and disposed of this appeal m_erii£}s Time .
following order.
2. The COI’I’6CtU€:SS ef.._t11eé.A etheé dlearhfled Single
Judge dated 06th June 2005
(L–KSR’I’C) in affirnrgieg Km No.88/2001
dated 15.o7.;;ec§2;d Court, Gulbarga, is
questioned fldevvddeppeflant, urging various
grounds. ‘izziayed to set aside the order
impugned Lin consequently to_q1}.ash the
:eddV%g:waradd:£iad;e1:12:19 z¥.I.i;.”sd3/200 1.
_ V 3. H ‘– AV’:}T’I–“.a’e if {he case are not reqlxired to be adverted to
i:1Vt11isuj*t:dgn;5ed1t for the mason ihat the Labour Court and
iealned Single Judge have elaborately referred to the
___fs:§Lete,§ and rival contentions urged by the respective
A The learned Single Judge heid that the finding of
fact recorded by the Labour Court an appreciation of
evidence 011 record and held that the deceased workman
\\M
Paramalma was net present in the depot “of
aileged incident that had taken place as Z
ieveled against him, the Labour C()’Lii”t”is e_he_Id-; 7.
the ieamed Single Judge in exercise ‘of his ie3::;:e:1ic:a1%
power under Articles 226 85 the ‘India:
Since the charge alleges} ~;_xflgai:1éi’ is
not proved, the order of aside by the
Labour Court, order by the learned
Single Judge in this Writ appeal,
contendizjig fihe §:3fne”ie”eneneeus in law.
4». We__have””e;§ém1.i11ed eontenfion with reference to
{re 0i”‘*U{‘l€ reasons assigled by the learned
Pmfeqiiige Labour Court with a View to find om;
— VV {Sf fact recordeé by the Labour Court is Vaiid
-. on exeiniixafion of the fmdiiitgs en the contentious
tide learned Single Judge has opined that the same
‘<:EeVe_'sy__{1o£ require 'at; be interfered with in the writ petition.
5. Since the eententious point framed by the Labour
Court is answered and held in favour of the deceased
¥w/
workman hoiding that he was not present in the _the
time of incident that was taken piace, the 4′
proved against mm. The leamed hae’ ; x
examined the findings recorded I335 ”
accepted the same as vaiid. __we. any’
reason to interfere with either of Court
or the order of the No substantial
question of “appeal for our
considerafioxy’ “de£?oiA:€i:» of ‘o.;1VVeI’it. Accordingly, it
is dismissed.. _ ‘ ”
Sd/F
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE