_._., ...,.,... ..,.- .\..ma.am n-man coma: or KARNATAKA 1-new COURT or mRNA§Ki€A HIGH 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAg'~.__
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA tt
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF N0vEM£§ER«t
THE HOPPBLE MR. JUs'1%;cEtmrfttJ\}L
WRIT PETITION Nc).597 i;2tc07¢1,mI<sRTc)
Between: V t
Sri.Bhimashi,
Aged about 45 years, . V
S/o.Li.mbajiFf:athod,~"" . 7 '
Post: A1iy&b¢:1c1,i'liI-3ijap:;r_ '1"?a_lui's:,'-f H '
Bijapur ;3:s:;5;.<;:. t A ...PE'I'ITIONER
(By "S£€;vB._$§ddat§p%:_, Am.)
Andi"
The 'flivisiotfisétl
Ngzyfihi West Road
t " Cprporation,
' ..Bi_;a§i2x'DVivi:si0n, Bijapur.
. . RESPONDENT
" . h B.F'ati1, Adv.)
z'i'vIrtis writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
V' " of the Constitution cf India with a prayer to call for
therecords on the file of the Labour Court at Bijapur in
KID No.8/2004 and quash the impugned order dated
tt21.w.2oo5 passed by the Labour Court at Bijapur ;in
KID No.8/2004 vidc Azmcxure 'K'.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing in 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the
following:
HE)"-'I VNUEHAIMHU AA :uo-us-. . ...... .
-....... .. .............m naurl wax: or KARNATAKA HIGH comer or KARNATAKA HIGH?
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner was a permanent emplo§%e§fl’of ~ the
respondent-Corporation. He was
and he was dismissed from serv’iee~ pmeuaot-vto an7order 1′. V
dated 18.06.2004. The said
questioned by the ptiiei
The Labour Court, its ‘ dated
21.10.2006 has rejected of which is
produced by the said
rejection; this Court.
2. -i counsel appearing for
the petitioneif-iii7.f1ii:’ei* that the petitioner was
.acqL1itte_?iir1 the Cou.I1:. He further submits
on record does not disclose that the
_ place due to petitioner’s negligence.
He submit that the penalty is dis-
Vpifopofiionate with the misconduct.
Mr.Veeresh B.Pati1, learned eounsel appearing
“foi4 the respondent supports the award. He submits
that the petitioner is involved in another accident. The 77
-3-
penalty of dismissal is proportionate ysfith the
misconduct.
that the enquiry is not just test,
the Labour Court has evidence
on record and co.i_:fiIiei.’ that the
misconductis 1.1 the reasons given
by the the misconduct is
proved. which is based on
appmciofioto .oi’evid:e11ce, cannot be faulted.
Si In 21$”-_tiies is concerned, it is to be
3
>
>
I
2 the ‘mtitioner was prosecuted for the
_ under Section 304A of the Indian
evidence, the petitioner has been
‘:. It is no doubt true that the acquittal is on
of proof beyond reasonable doubt and also
V’ of evidence. Be that as it may, the fact remains
it is a case of acquittal. Indeed it is to be noticed
that the accidents on a High way do occur, but the
1?’
4. I have perused the _
the Labour Court. Indeed .e
-If’ f\Il\l”\”‘n Illhnna u…- _.- —
………. .. M………w. flturs uuuifl or KARNATAKA men couer or KARNATAKA H1611}
= above.
-4-
question as to who is responsible is once a
matter, which is required to be taken note..of.VV’:’Itfah*{ays
could be treated as an Act of God or \(is”i’t*I::aj’o:f.: ttsgxdetee
am of the View that the peiialty or
certainly be harsh in the of’ £115 toga.
Having regard to the of the.V_oirei11IistaV11ces, the
following order is V % V’
(a) Petition
(b)4_T’i1eA stand confirmerzi.
jar is concerned, the said
__ — shafl stand modified and the
” petitioafier be reinstated but however,
“*.vithot’3t backwages and aiso without
CoIitii’11_1it},= of service.
‘ — ‘1″t§.e:..I’ei11statement of the petitioner would be as
‘jafresh appointee.
” Rule is issued and made absolute to the extent
sol ‘
sps Sfiage
F” /E05)
us-:15;-u. .