High Court Karnataka High Court

R R Aralikatti S/O Rangappa … vs The Karnataka Agro Industries … on 16 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
R R Aralikatti S/O Rangappa … vs The Karnataka Agro Industries … on 16 September, 2009
Author: N.Kumar &B.Sreenivase Gowda
This writ appeal is fiieci 11/5 4 of the Kar;1a3:a1:2; High
Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in i;1r;e1~.V_wr'it
petition No.338/2006 dt.13.03.'2{}O6 and etc. '  V 

This appeal calming 011 for healing this N. 
cielivczrsd the fo£iowi1:1g:      " V "'

Jvnenmxw  '
The appeiiant has    aI%*::'ir.~;:wg:' 
paSSf:':d by the learried $i1'1g1€:?V5..IL%ag{*3 €f£f31fi1i1"lg_tQ.E15.381163 any

dimciion tr) thfi auth(>r3i7;ia>*::>:- i:} (1f{3I1éi{:1:_t3Zf1 'thfi claim of the

appe"flan:;' "'§"vh?€.--  {ha Ixtianagez' af Kalnataka
Agra indziisstrics  On 36.63.2082 GB. aitafmiiig

{he agenf s:2;"§€:fa'§11m,{.:ati«aIi§"' Rig gzieizafics 32$ 3 poriian cf his

 I*6férar;:%.é:'1£j'LV. ékéziaeiifk """ "slush as gatuiijv, earraad ieave

ei1€::§;5;}i1:'1;»f*;151€._ h,.<¥i*§r: }:"10£ baen settled. Sifi} iarge arrioums are

  Qua tgs---.44_'_fiI*1€_.;:3<éf:':?;£;::§:1f:r notv;-ithstangiing some partial settlement

"  by?' v'%,_f%9£e re$p0z1de:1t«:C0rpGrat;i@I1,, Alang wit}: €116 writ

A "';1::€£.iEi€.s.¥}'..AA*'§";& has pregiuced AI'1:1€XU_I'€»J , the statement shawing

  éiabursemfini af refiremani berzefits which Shaws the {Giza}

 "'u;§§Inm:n{ payabie :0 the appafiant wag Rs.5,1Q,384/--~ Gut at"

L



which RS.i2,41,;'3G§/«» was the deduction and  113$ 

payable was Rs.2,68,8'79. It is nc§i»Ai§i"<ii$pute,  $3-'aid' j  

axnount of Rs.2,€::8,8'Z"9/ -- has Vbsaen  
iearnéd Single Judge deciined  thé  of {fie
deduetiom made by  the' Vvgrdfind that it
dues not ran within     226 of the
Constitution.  adjudicatien is to
ba made:  €33}  iherefore, he difimissed

{he wfit:';f;:etjfi;i0i1;%-".V-«._   

3 '3ii:;g§i€ve<§ VV'£§y tfifi game, the apgeiiani £3 befere 2&3

  801111363 E1731' the aypfiiiamt assaiiiug this

ifllgfigiiéd' '¢0I1tend$ that the autharititzs have not given

'the  of the ciéducticrzs which they have £10116. 1:}

 :";~:¢:' ézjgfxs éppsfiani has paid caytairz ameunta xszlfich are mm;

 note Qfi Tharafara, he saeim fa? & flireciian is the

 '=.aV.izt}:1er'ities Ea racoinsiésr the daductiari and is gay tha

k//..

amaum dam Ea ihé: appellamfl



3' We sis net see any 1'l1€I'i'iZ in the said contentiazz. Tkxis

is 1:10: a case Where witheut any jU.SfifiC3I;i0I"l  xrétitfafixgnt

b€1"1€fi'£S due to the appellant have been  ' 

respondentfi. The appellant. aftéf  :r3_achi;f1gT _'V  of __ 

$uperam111atio:1 was retired fif0;r_33: Q:1 s’1;1§:V11
it veia3 female}. as per A11n(%xu1″e§§}:§;i1€ 1:9 {fie
appeilant was Rs..§,§O,3§’i4é/~. V.;,’§*ir.;gz:1″1 (‘)%iAti 1 ree heads a
sum of Rs.2,41,5OVE:/~ 1% ::b fai3I1ce amount of

RS.2,68,S’79 / ¥A geaid to the petitioner. if the

d€di1ci.:iG:”i’13}é.d€ by Vtfife féasgjévfzderii 35 130% Eegal and vaiid, the

pé;§’:ga 316 83131113. Wrii: petitiaz: is :10: a

V.V:*éé:1:§:5&’§v’. /g%fi%;$A.’§?}’fiE}lb€F €23″ I’&§f*E3S€I1’EEi'{i()I”}S Ea €315 autyhoritiés

s%;£,1_t;E:i?,__::{2’2: £~§i;=:;}:*$.?:::’5;;Tz”1fg §}U.I’ji){}S€. Uflder thew circumstancea We

V (its 135%” S65 fizétiiicatiorz ta izltcrffizm with me order passed by

H Siraglfi Juflge Whfi has righiijgz decfined ta £331.15

._§1:§j ‘Tdiiactiogzg, Eioxrmver, he had resarvad fiimrty :0 this

“–«:{9;§31§é}2aI:t ta shaifiarige £21086 éaducticns and 366%: for

de:i::°fif:é:1a£ie2n in accardamse wiih 13%: if: an apprsgriate

forum. Accortiiiagly, there is 110 mexét in “-.af;§)eal

Rajected.

CH