In nu: man COURT or Iuuuumuu A1'
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY or-' MARCH. zooagf "
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'l'ICE sU4BfiAsH_ B,Ame;L* _ F.
B EE:
Smt. Bhimabai, --._ _ it
W/o Dhan alias Dhanshctty, __ :
Rathod, aged 35 years,._ _ '
Rfo Hothpet, Melina Thfindag
Taluk: Shahapur, ')1; V .
District : Gulharga. ..
n H A .. PETITIONER
%%%% Adv.)
1. The Krishna Bhagya.Jala'~_
__Nigam._;_Ltd.*,.ACompany V
under Act,
Bangalore, _
¥i<=13'~*1-"by 'it? E'-Oznliany Secretary}
Mimésine '
The A;s.«st. Engineer, KBJN
' é 2 . »_ é ' BuiIding~.Oo;1auuction, Sub--Dn. -2,
" = V
4 V'~l'a1uk:"-Sahapur,
" eDis_1':rict': Gulbarga.
; V The; Executive Engineer,
KSBC Dist. Divn. No. 1,
.4 . Bh]-mrayanagudi
Taluk: Shahapur,
District : Gulbarga.
4. The Superintending Engineer.
SEC District Circle No.7,
Bhimrayanagudi,
Taluk: Shahapun.
District : Gulbarga.
(By Sri.M.R.C.Ravi. Adv. for 1é;.1 the 2) 9 .9 1 "
This Writ Petition is filed underfirticles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. p1aying,to' the dated
28.2.2001 of the Labour} Gtulbaxga made in
Ref.No.219[99 vide Annex.B as they illegal and
unsustainableinlaw. , ~-
This Petition it 'B' Group this
day, the Court madelthe ~ _
This llxlittit 'Pefiiziqn agaJn' st the amt: dated
23.2.2oo1_itt Reference .No.2*19i 1999. '
in sought for reference of a dispute on the
had worked as a daily wage employee
1982 and she was orally terminated from service
reference, the claim petition was filed and the
filed the 'counter to the same. Thereafter, the
V tietitioner did not led any evidence to prove her case. The Labour
found that, when the petitioner not proved her case.
the question of passing any award does not In View of the
it
rag -'.4'
failure of the petitioner to adduce evidence, the Labour,
dismissed the dispute.
3. Learned counsel for the peddooe.-.- the A ll
advocate of the petitioner did not advice
that, the petitioner was attending
not aware of the legal implication. ~al's9 suhmitsp tldiat. the
petitioner had worked 240 ode eoootgoeo-oeayeod entitled for
thebenefit. e
4. Leaxneflfl the respondents
submitted ‘lnotifiworked for 240 days
contzinuousliinp he that, according to the
petitioner. she 1.1.1987 and the reference
wasp’ years of the dismissal. He also
is passed on 283.2001 and the Writ
i.e. nearly afier five years. He
dispute itself was stale and dead. On the
p orpletoroee, the Writ Petition is zequimd to be dismissed.
that, the dispute is not maintainable after lapse of
5. It is not in dispute that, the reference is sought after 13
years. It is also not in dispute that. no evidence is led before the
éaeli
( .,,-(
Labour Court. Further, after the award, there is delay
‘than five years in filing the Writ Petition. Even
petitioner, fmm the date of dismissal, tin:1\:___is (iéliiy’iIi§_i’. i i
more than 21 years. I do not find any ii.’
i Writ Petition at this length of time. _V
Aceoniingly, this Writ.~ ifeiiiigmi ‘on the and
latches and also on merit.
*4?! –