High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri M Joseph S/O David Mariappa vs The Divisional Controller on 27 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Joseph S/O David Mariappa vs The Divisional Controller on 27 January, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
----v -u-.--.« uvupuu an -wan-up-uruuw 'nun: uvvnv VI cu-u-uvawu-nu-1 -nun: uwwa\- vs uu--uu-rs-ruu--w -u

W.P.N0.12762,/2008 h fiiod undor Artie!» 226"§n.d'
227 of the Constitution cf India, praying to q;'iich'~..l§aa_. 
award dmd 3.4.2008 in I.D.No.S3[2005~,:.-_ * amps: 
Anmxur¢-A, pawod by the Pruiding Omc:r,...'1m"--.Addi. V " --.
Labaur Court, aangaiom, so far aawfiat. awarded'. 160% 
back wages from the data: of dismi_ssu.!..ba: daatabvf awm:.. I

and al:c.,. 

W.P.NO.13049l2008 is nndfir  "2z6~£r:d

22? of the Constitution of Indil;-«.p?a.ying'-::qATch!l for the
rucords on the fit: of Caurt 0f"'fi! I--Fi'"!8idiflfl"Gffl63Ir, 111
Add!. Labour Court', ""%«--8a:1ga!r.;r':&._  respect :3!'
I.9.No.53]2605 and ttx:., "      .

Thase Petifibrss ccerhiiig' }&2fi  iireéétifinary Hearing

this day, 610  fbllqiwimf' 

These   an dimmed against the

--ey;ardq;.f:...ir¥E :%.n.N§.s3;2oa5 datod 9* April zone on an mo
 this '3??TAAg$di.:V«1.§'b¢ur court, Banqalcre.

%2. % 1ei.§.na§.127s2/zoos is by rm mkman

' 'Aq_i;"egti¢ni:'is:.._A«5tha denial af 76% back wages, «harms the
V'   No.13D49./29% is by the Corparatior:
 'j:'q§.1_sgséioning the award of raimtalaarmnt and diracfing 1'or

 " -fiéyrmnt of 30% back minus.

3. warkman was dismissad Fm:-n service by the arriar

of the Dbciplinary Authority dam! 22.11.2604 for



'  '-*'-'...'-{'5' W w-uuw-nan:-s mun uuuul Ur KAKNAIAKB Haul-1 Luuxl ur nmcnnmnn mun \..uuI-u ur l\.Ml\uu-unnr-L «-..u.. ....

rurmining unauthcriwd absent with  V.
17.11.2093

to 2.3.2004. In this regard, an e=i§u:a5§é_
caonductaed and enquiry officer submfi:e§d—h.i3_ K ‘V
stating that charge B pI’0Ved-

oomidoring tho roport |IfiiI8’d.:’&lf1 6&3′
Against tho order of dismégsal. ,9J:’i–..tk§;~é*ii::r_1_an “r’IIiwd-iispuhu
under section 10(4A) of tins. ;

4. Thu Ividlnu build
that the fa: firs-par and nliowod an
partias workman got hirmelf
marked #5 documents W1 to W8,

wheregas on merit and M14 in 17

En’ higfiidfinco and in th: cram: oxamlnatkon

_ V The Labour Court considering
V _ thoAes:av=id:a_:t§§ ..f¢}.nnd that the wurkman was suffering from

–~C.fi:j’ «.@v,epgnee§k*;g,.«:’despita ha was directed to mm the duty on
V Themamr, the worlanm went home and
P.’ipfiéma§ the depot manager and had submitted the
~ mudica! curtiflcau at par Exs.M14 be M16 showing that he

was not kuping mil butwun 18.11.2903 tn 31.12.2093
as per Ex.M14, bttwun 18.11.2®3 be 29.2.2004 as per
Ex.M15 and between 4.3.2904 he 17.6.2004 as per

I i.L.:.’~?P

‘GB KARNRTKKA HIGH LUUQI UP RF\Kl’&l’\Il”|l\l’\ l’l8\3I”! \n\.JI.n\I int: n.–…. .. … .

disputw. Ewan if it {w camidond that he was ui!ir%€J”§§f”5:i””–¥%A’
mat a ground in grant hack wage and back wnggifi
come as newam! no warkmar: even when. ha

absent unautharisedly and having iniapbéid

him. This Labour Court
Suction 11(A)of tho I.D.A;t mgaea=£*.v’V:j’I;dit:§9uI§.|~’;r” ax.mas. we
said pofinr. Accarding’I§, ‘_3- ward of the
Lnbaur Cuurt to 1’

8. Thu subject:

to deniaiij Qvith cumulative effact.
He: ‘3 wages. He is entitlad for
aonfin!}:’it;:LApf konsequential benefits.

% %% petition Ma.127s2;2we and by
% by thu corpmmon is puruy alkraod

. .. , U :3″ gbnfiw :.

sd/–

Judge