IN 1315 HIGH COURT 014' i<ARE.\EA'1'Alx' A AT BmGA:fi"R£'- v. Dated this the 12"' day at' August, 2009 Before - ms Ht'}N'B1.E MR JUSHCE HUL i;WA;§1" "G '~ « . A War':'.t Petéfiau 214'%'s ';<..;ma5A'a_:;:.r;u 8% 9-1:: b MES Garment Impex §131,5"'AMa.in Yeshsxsanthpur Indusiriai Suburb V V H Stage, '.furnk11rR£)ad Bangalore 2:2 " "_ -- Z. , By Sri Prakash Niaighija Egircgtcr I ' _ Petitioner (By Sri semashem, ' And: Sm John BapAt};<:t__SEr:ME~."Ia1*if§?a;L£f)a "--- 38 yrs. Rfa if 15, I-?_z_1jaswa¥£.NiiriyaV..._ Opp: Hausa, I.Mai11 '- , II Cr0ss»,«1i}uru§g,2:ntepa33?a« . __ Bhagaiére' 5533 932' Respcndent (By sggéaaagpal ?vf 1f3:1igj..Adv.) ,'__WritVLA.:Pétitiun is filed under Art.?,26:'227 of me Canstituiion '£(}..£§1.i§§5h the award dated 31.1.2365 in R€:f.38.5 1997 by the I-'':'}. ' é " 'T 1 ' '1.+V£l.'§}!}i1I_'hC0I1f"i.,.~ Bangalore- ' Writ Peiiiitm mmitzg an fz;-2* hearing ':'his day, fizz Cam made the féfiiiovésing: I'-J ORDER
Petiiicen is by the management; assailing the award passed’
Labeur Cam, Bangalure in Ref.38f1997 on 31.1.2605.
Alieging refusal of empioyment, after f:-ziiure,
zaferencc was made on the request oft§1c1;Werl~j;n?:’a:; is} 1:31:
Lahaur Court afier heading ‘mquiry, having héld. :32: the i!V’léIV£_i1′:*.g.’ {2iI’.Ji’ld1′-‘1″»£?;t.é€.”1’i’..3’~. L
net fair and pmper, ordereé for reinstaténfézzt wifi1 wégeé: Hence, V
this petiiim: by {he aggievefi V:*£j;::V_2age1*s1éi§’t.” .1′; “- . ._
Hazard flze £§91:ts¥::_1′:i%;t)r’e3;éi1ti;;g.t1§a3 parties.
Aaccriiingé to c4§(;z;1i,ga¢§”_.’reg;crr:senting the management, mare is :16
_ refusfiwerk. fiéspéta vissugznce ofnatice through registered post, workman
ciid aztgfl far duty. Otigjnaily the miscenduci was regardixig
€ix’za1 1’€§%£:’¥”i labour Sour: ought to haw visualisesd the siiuaiion
V V’ _ and s§iauld._’i1ét’ fiéive ardereé for bank wages although the workman is at fault,
Eyithgut iztzgnésing punishment. Rather, it has arclered ff)!’ reinstatemerzt with
, wages and submitted, an the przincipie of no pay for as war};
% .;¥c;:”kman wouid :20! be entitled for any hack wages. it ié else submitteé that
may axe maéy to take back ihfi wogkrnan for Wax): and there is no refusal af
empioyznent.
Per mantra, counsei representing the workman subtnittsd’. that the;
Labour Cam’: after imking into ms signature on the a¢knos§zl.s:J;igV¢?§:£n.;:i;t *a,*;d
verifying the dccmnefit, has opined mat there is cencoctiofii
was issued to the workman . Afler looki;m’g “izi’£e. théy sa;::$, “I;,:a11p§11’VV{3<31:;1
passed the impugned award which flees not $3.} «. VV "
It appears the wcrkmags 7§oinedVAt§1e: ‘of fi1é’tnanag«;.1nent during
November 1991 as a Writerrv ‘ t3fe:.£VVtt”>”I’;¥%st’?_A Vgixggn by the Labour Ceuri. it is
ncticed 15,_.7L’* ‘éirorkman was absent Aithnugh it is
suggestged £0 ti1e§”~”&:{§r£:r::;in $.f2at’§ie did not Wriie leiter in the management,
‘V V’ “*2;?hat”‘;*a§is 3.’UE’.v€I}”‘$I&t¢=d “iiiifivis that an inquiry he was toid net to acme far
giuiy. Piaséénexgésgé i’r.es%;Vs”;:¢ecific ground ofthe management is that regarding such
refi1eal <3f e;n§ié§21;cn§ fly the management the werkman did :19: write any
.i_.=31tets. £116 Vnther hané. it is the contention offlxe warkznan when he wen:
» 'zc;2anrVl ihem, he was not aiiotted weak and he was not taken an éuty.
Fiiijthelz it appears that there is same misunéfirstanding beiween the
u " V _ fiifimgemfint and the warkmazx. {lfcourse according ia the warianan, {here is
refusai astf employment. Acccrfling tn: the managemeni, the Weficrxxan
-,/
__ fill} haeigg ieages.
remained unauflxorisediy absent for same iime. It is seen, on the cail letter
issueé by the management, afier analyzing, the Labour Court, takifeginto
eonsideratinr: the etmiention of the workman, has epined ihatfiee.’
approached me Personnel Officer, he was made to wait up 39. K V» ‘w
as such, the werkman approached the
fixrther epined that there ie an acceptable. evidefice fegardingb’ee11″ne{iee’i§ei;1g ~.
issued and there is retina} ef emp1oymefit’veQ:f§1erthaf1 {heVc’a$e _0f:Af112e£itheriseé V
absence’ Noting the cenduet offiae ;;an;es;’ it that«t1:’e’eee’n c1uet of five
management is nothing but refi1se1VVe_i’w 0r£::” fI’he’e§7>i1teiitien of the workman
that he was net senjedijwith n(};tAice»’Se’;1t };};…;4}:3._mé1n:i§;ement calling him te
reperi ta sxfcgrii is ‘zii$;5iii::§§;..’}?»e tf2z{§’a,e It inay, Labour Cam did not examine
33 E9 whether eke vieriernafi’ eves’ .’gaixii’i11l§; empieyed at not While awarding
. 3 3:: :}bieA..ei2rem~nstanees, in modification ef the award of the Labour
(?3e:1:”&; .s2;;hi17e the order of remstatement, the workman womé be
V V’ _ eniitieefer vsefneiaenefii. The xnamgement shail pay 40% bask wages from
” ” ” iii; “3.:2″2ee:. Sinee suheequenfiy fizereaftexg fine wmkman is said to
e.¥i2v-{e ‘:22-fsIreri<ed 'that is ta say, when an intefim erder was paesezi by this
M directing the workman ta joén duty' and he has not reps:-rted to duty, he
is net entitled far back wages. However, the: workman can gaze and repay"! far
duty fizimediately.
Petitinzm is aliowed in part. — _ _ ~
JUDGE
An