IN THE HIGH COURT OF KLARNATAKA, ~
[)A'I'ED THIS THE 19TH DAY 01: SEPTEMVEER gm T &
BEFORE
THE I~IC}N'13jlLE MR. JLISTIQE) 1é;m§1MoHA2~:AF:E;n:§&*'
Vwmr P'E."1"'If{'.{(i)N NO. 138%{8~ 01%? 20:)?' iL--R1:;s§kk
*1'1~:}3: GENERAL MANAGER
om KENT ROAD' V V. 1 .
MANCSALORE, - 2
PETITION ER
(By Sri ': "Y Hfggiri§éa;:3sAfi,a'ADv.)""W
AND _ _ . .
1 ;<:_ smNTH.A"
.M.A.Jc:«I:n -
~ Rj;«=~.T M M"GAR_§3EN
crm KENT ROAD
ENGINEER
CIVIL DIVISION
" NEANGALGRE.
" . 3 RESPGNDENTS
5.' 3:4/S: M (:2 NARASIMHAN ASSOCIATES, ADV FOR R1 )
_ '(BY SR1. H JAYAKAR SHETTY, CGC FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILE!) UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 'Z227 OF THE CONS'i'I'Ti}TION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD D'I'., 9.3.2007 PASSED IN CR
N024] 1998 3? THE CEENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN'DUS'I'I'~§'iAL
TRIB-UNAL--CUM~LABQUR COURT VIBE' ANNEXA.
M
THITS PEITETION, COMING ON FOR PREI,IMiNARY
HEARING }N 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY THE COURT.
THE FOLLOWING: ' ».
The 1st: respondent havn
petitioner as a Sweeper cm, _paI’f–tin:c
1979 upto 2-3-1986 and nuptoTV~n18¥{)2%§1990,
a}1egi11g dernal of . nWi.thou£”A notice or
compensation, ixzitiatx:-,V<V}1V_ '3j:fQéeediI1gs uncier
the II1c1L1st1'ia'«3.~;'i '," vfnf short Act, which
when ended in the Central Government,
exarcisixaugnjnrisiiimcf;ig)i1… I;1nder Section 10 of the Act,
refm§;'n;i":t;e di$p1n1t4:_&for a.djudicat:i.on, by order dated 10-
192-..?8'«tcs..i1iY1s_.Centra1 Cmvemment hldushial Tribunal-
c;–L13::3.n4Lab<ii1;1'VA'n:= "Court, where it was reg"st<=:red as
C.I€.u1\T{)'§'V24./4"1998. Before the Labour Conn, the
"..j_=.j;§efiti'o:nnr was arraignccl as 2nd party No.1 and the: 2116
' figsfiéndent as 2114 party No.2. The 1st I'f:Sp0I1d(3:I'1t filed
u M1161' statement of claim, which was resisted by filing
Statement of objections of the petitioner denying the
M
existence of master and servant reiationstlip,
QM respondent, did not choose to file a C0'm1iéf., " " 2
respondent though examined as' Wfikfiil was jiloii' fi£Iofsi.*3_{-
examined while the petiticiizexj filer}. on V 'of'; one» . L'
witness in lieu of recording I\{fW–1 and
was not tendered The Labour
Ciotlrt, on the ljaeis evidence of the
131; and directed
" of reifistatement by
Hence this writ
petition. "
:;””‘I;CaI.~;1(~:-C1 eoiitxsel for the petitioner contends that
e–..tIVi’:e ‘V did not lay before the Tribunal
legal eviclernce of the fact that she was a
and had werked for 240 days in the year
A –p3;’eoedi.ng the alleged termination. According to the
…1eamed counsel, filing of an affldavit, being her own
statement, in her favour, cannot be regarded as
M
sutficient evidence for the Labour Court to come fie-.Tthe
conciusian that the 1st respondent was the
employee and had in fact worked for _
Leaxned coimsei hastens to
recorded by the Labour C§o1V_1:.:’t;4_is pérgférse. A .. V’ 1
3. Per comzra, Sri, Nara3*.a:i1’sWamy, 1éa1*11ed: counsel
for the 1st respondent’4’v£3_1*1efi1€{§1;ilyIbéizafiéiads that the 1st
respondent plafijtrd Court relevant
ev1dex:.c§%kTa;1éiAsméra j%%c§up1sé%kkk%unth the unchallenged
testim<V§13.y– sf' '1't=$p6ndent in the aflidavit, there
wasAsub$té§i1f§a1'1c€gé}-éiiifi}e11ce of the fact of master and
V' 2 'i'r.3,iatioiiéQ}*fi§_3 and for having worked
240 days in the year immediately
pit":-z:_._ec¥,i_r1g terxnination.
V’ V’ V. x ‘ 4..éA4;V”I”iaviI1g heard the lC3.}’I1.(id counsel for the parties
* ‘a:r1§1’AAexa.mined the order ixnpugned, What is patent is
” “that there is no discussion whatsoever over the
documents produced by thé lst respencient in support
M
of her elairrz that she had worked for 240 days in.T’&-year
immediateiy preceding the alleged.
co:r1traz’y, what is animated in the awaI1:1.Vi_s;”‘t.t;a’:A_t.’t_*V:te% _
reeponde:’1t’s evidence by jwayr
tmehellenged as there was _11e e1*eSe»exa11*:§11{a}:i.£}n§3′: ‘S05
21150, the Labour Court ebeemed ‘t.héL’t was
discharged, but his testimtinye .3510 avaii, since he
was not textzdered for e_re’es_«e5§;a1};I3ir:1atiz§:_tj1..These are the
twe aspects {of in the mind of
the Iebe1:I’ V t a finding that the let
respendeizigwas en’Ae111p§{oyee of the petitgiener, whe had
é_ iI1V_’f£:’:*::{‘,)1′.:})’;l’Vfv,t in iZ»£40.__.deys ef continuous service in a year,
‘ jireeedjng the termination.
5;’ The fact that the 1st respondent p}”GdL1C€Ci
d{)€.f11II}’f:?I:1¥ZS in support of her case of employment. and
“‘ee::t.i11:1.(>us service, and those deem11eI”1te were marked,
Exhibits neverttheiese the contents of the dOCli1’Il€I’1t.S
were not proved in evidence. If only the eentents are
H
6
established tiicn, and than alone, the docxzmemfsare
admissibie in cvid.enct;~:, Admittcitdly tha petitiezzufi;
the claim of the 13: 1*t::spoI1.de;1t, and in tliéu
matter, the 1st, rt-izspondent,
additionai evidence 1:0 prove: A’-¥;1:1″e. .i:i:ea§ ~ *’
documents. _ _ ‘_ I
6. A plain r€*.:;i1dV_ing r:)f’th£ij4dVéfi.11itie;iVV6f Qémpioyer’
in Section 2(g) of the an industry
ca1Tic;::1″é}i91″i33;§»V{)r file afitfiority of a11}; depa1*tmen1:
of or a State Govermnent,
2nea,I:$ t.he aI}tjf;oi’ity”-pféscribed 33:1 that behalf, or whe;-re
V. – 1j1ci’ ::{1′”1.ti!’1:)ri%¥Li3esA is 1:)’1V’é’:éir,«’V1″*i1:>(3c1, the Head of the Depar2:II1ent;
2i::;__d V [3;i.:”r¢izé.tiQn :0 an industzry carried on by a meal
a};1’iI.[10Ijivi§’;. Chief Executive Oificer, In the instant
‘ case is no material can record to establish that the
U.;_:e»*.:é}:ioz1e1’ or the 2nd respondent are the prescribed
….:-iuthoflties of the Central Govennnent. Thus the: need
to impieaci the Unian Government was essantial, so as
M
8
qL1as1″;ing the award and remitting the proceeding for
consideration afresh after CXt€fI}.diI1g
opportunity cf lqearing to the
incnuungxecenfingcnwnanmonaxemasnccirany,andtg
corzclxxdc: tiha proceeclings and pa}3§ awé;r._ri,” stricigiy-~,ifi*–.V
a.cc0rdam3e wi.ti1 law by assi.g;ii1<3g matéujatzs, _"£"1J:1'<i.},i11gs anal
c0n1":1:.1sicms, as expt:cti§i.oL1.s1§k'"as.: 'pokmjble. VE~';i1%1t':<+': the 2m;
rcspmcxdc-::£1t is the Assisf311t"vE§ie(:x;fi€?g3,Erlgirleer of the
Pasta} Dt:pa;*t:;~fi.:¢3 :}t:, who is the
clajméult -. bsVf<§i'z1d Party. Writ petition is ordered
Sd/–
Iudge