_A_§§!.3i€f}' O'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE '
DATED THIS THE 20*" DAY 0F JULY29095 f O
THE H'()N'BLE MRJUSTICE
wan" g1_'«.:r1'1;;_0N NV{}..$?é§_9 or
BETVVEEN:
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporgiiqn,
Mysore Divisieitg X '
Mysore, '. .
By its Di'vi3iQnal Ci*i?:*;2tzfoE'lc:r;._
Bannimantapa "
Represented by' 5i:i:s Qiiicf-_L;'1w_'
(By Smt.i¥i...R-Refiu3§a;:w'A,r{§:§:"'
V ' V _ ugtazrgr :AP2§;.;I'1&}
O._'Sk1;)_. Ghaiai,
Housae Ne§_3.28',~ ' ' "
Banfiimantapa,
Mysofe.-5570001.
9%"
"PETITION ER
..RESP()NI)ENT
fSri.S.B.Mukkannappa, Aciv. far CIR)
This Wfit Petifion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the award
passed by the Labcur Court, Mysore in I.D.N0,_I5§:5f'9i9'_' _
Anne:9LQ.
This Writ Petition cemiiig .V:§$iaV_\forA"I*1e3:ingiii1;}ii§_;'da§r$ «ithe = L'
Court made the foliowingp
vjumw~r'n-hi-'nu,
i0RDERi'i
"byi'fihVe-iihriaiiageinent assailing the award
passed ihe ikiiyisore in I.I.D.Nn.45f99 dated
23.9.05
i L i
ii iiileged unauthorised absence fhr four different
pefiéds from 2-53 months an enquiry was held mad the
i ii ‘ ;resp;<indéht–workman, Whfi was warking as Canductnr under the
– gsefitibner-Cerperation was dismissed from service, as against
ii iiiivhich, the workman raised a dispute before the labour Court,
Mysere, tinder Section 10(4~A) ofthe I.D.Ac.t. In the enquiry
JV
held, considering the leave application and other gmunds raised
by the workman, taken a lenient View in the matter the leimnr
Court ordered for reinstatement with 50% _
continuity of service and other c0nsequentia§”’be*:2e’fiie;’V.Being *
5 ‘
aggrieved by the same, the Managetnezgt
3. Heard.
4. It is brqgght to meragm gfghis that apart from
the said remained absent for 2~3
naonthsjhe’ was However, byevirtue 0f
the interizn €v;<iV_e;'.p£sVsée:Is this Court workman has reported
V' .$ubse<jfie'hfly he retired on superannuation and his
4V%V1f1ot:'_i~~settied. Although there is a justification in
pe§eing,__ihe,LA€ir€Tier of reinstatement, since he was found tn be a
ehresiieéfirsentee awarding 50% back wages is disproportionate.
5. In the circumstances, the award pamed by the labour
Court, Mysore is modified and it is urdered that the workman is
‘2
E,
not entitled tbr 50% back wages from th: date of dismissai till
he is reinstated. The Inst of the order of the labour
remains intact. Accmdingiy, petiticm is allowed in part.
Bkp.