113′; Writ Appcal is fibd under Section 4 of
High Court Act praying to set aside the order
Pefimn No.17778/200′? dateé 04.01.2003. _ : * _
This Writ Appeal coming on for f
AC”l’iKG cmsr wanes, delivered tJf.;c”‘fo30wi1:;g:_: 0
-3……__..W0………._II Mi1’%00%% 0 A
Sri. B.J.So2aayaji, learned §@é’t1
on admission. Rwornii
2. Before lcarncd Judg¢,– were mod, (me by
the Workman bn.°’0a_gemu )fr:xVt agamst’ tm award
ciatcd 16.05.2901′? Mysore ‘mt mfietence
No.83] __ consficration of the matter and
the 0 the fo1low1ng’ :
VA party is dimctcd to pay to the first
V R§g§25;OOO/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousw
‘0n..!y;) for his illegal removal fiom service. The
” party is not entitled to any other reliefs.
Intimate the Government aaocoxdingly.’
% AV This award of the Labour Court was the subject matter of
before the icarned Single Judge, as mentiomad
hcncinabove by the Worlman as well as by the Management.
W
4. Immed Single Judge by the impumed order, V
with the findings reoonied by the Labour Court, ‘fit
that the cozmpcmsation granted by the Labour
of Rs.2S,O{)O/- would be 1
enhance it to Rs.50,000/—. It “of the
the learned Single Judge, which chem H us in
this Int1’aCourtAppeal. Vv
5. Learned counsel {for yf-Vuoualy submitted
before us that ifs: before the Labour
Court 240 days in a year and
conscquezfiily ‘that made at his instance aficr a
long and £ie1fiy._§f years. The submission is that on
Vtwon» it would be wholly unjusfied and
to award him with payment of compensation
_ to
. Judge has also taken into eonsxii ‘ this
matter and has recorded a finding that thc
_ xéfifiqfidént had worm fiom 16.03.1993 to 31.03.1994 placing’
on Ex.W-1, the ocriIfica’ tc issued by the Assistant
‘Executive Enmccr. Ex.W-2 is a series of vouchers and other
W
documents again to show that the Workman had
with the appellants for the aforesaid period.
evidence of M.W.1 further re-1nfo’ we
worked with the second party from 16.53. He
further admitted that during the put 2.;
continuous service. hyt
witness sufieiently the documents,
Exs.W-I and we employed by the
app-eliants for discharged his
dutiesaS$¥zch.._,\\\’~.//:»”* ._ .. 2,
‘2’. safificeefm; th,, T: by the Labour Court and
concuneti by Judge, Workman has been denied
‘rejnsta:i€me_r_§}t, and continuity of service, but was
of Rs.25,000/-, which hm since
V by the learned Single Judge.
all the aforesaid facts and features, we are of the
5 that no case fir interfiezenee is made out in this appeal.
H Learned counsel for the appellants hm plmed reliance on a
jendgxnent ofthe Supreme Court repottedin 2006 AIR EV 3571
gassasmntsngauer, c.A.n., ltota Ya. mum xuumu) to coamrfi
“®
that delay in mking reference is rm; and in this
was delay of ten years in making a request
should be granted to the Workman.
10. We have no dispute with nsggxd ratio tit’
aforesaid case, but it does not to of the insmmt
11. As 1ncn£ion::d._hez=cin,t3.!.1§5_v::, had new dc-niad
reinstatement, ::.«’.~311&_ ‘of”se1vx:e’ , by the Labour
Court as welt Judge. That being the
factual pnganeemcnt of amount from
Rs.2S,€)00V[‘-« be a ground for interference in
this man cm nma; The’ V is hereby disrnissed.
..\
Soli-
Sd/-
Judge
Acting Chief Justice?”