IN 11% HIGH comm" OF KARNATAKA AT BA1*€GALORE
IBATED ms Km 7'"! my 01? E€{}'&5EEvEER, 2003
BEFORE V
Tm HONBLE MR. JUSTICE 2~1.>«s. 2-:&zx<3m1oH;3:§;'V§fi3_,};s f V'
WRIT ?ETI'£';{{)N No. 96a4§2é'o7'C,'g:;'--«. 1 .; 'A 'I h' V
wmr PETITION N0. 5393/gé§j?_ ~ '~ V' 1'
WP. No. 9634:;§§;g;z V
BETWEEN :
-uuauumc mmmm -mum...-
LOKASEEZSHANA TRUST V
N02 RESEENCY RCMD H V. .
BANGALQRE25
REP. BY ITS SECEEEV-fi'A§{L" _ '.'.';"PE"I'r1"10N:2R
(B12;-*Sri. 3
AND :
-Ivmmvmnwwr
~s;;i. 3.1 stém %%%%% 14 .
'- ,Ac;e£3;3 A;BO'Eff 50 ms
'S50 ;o.M§;:.3212 . V V
M BLOCK ;'~E:\;;;'E§3»TE*$£= LA'r'QL?'I"
BA2~:12._;z 9§. j'..-' Rfismmam
~ ; « «{ B3: Sri. £1 :€E}:LAKA:«:m RAG, ADV.)
* * WRIT PEIIIIGN 13 man UNDER ARTICLES 225 AENEID
'227 OF THE CO3'€STITU'TI{3N OF E'5DIA WITIiI A PRAYER TO
" 'I"I:i"E AWARD DT. 9.10.2066, IN REF NO. 13952036 {OLD NO.
" £1' OF 1999} ?;~.ss~;m BY 1 ::,?:;m,,. :,:,;~,30L:fl.. 5012?. 35:"
A .,F§ANGALORE? 's»"IjE}E ANX~C.' AND ETC
/%A\}
X-"\E
BETWEEN :
Sri. E\siULLAHA.LLI SURI
SJC} LATE C SUBBA RAG
AGED AB£)U'i" SC? YEARS
REAT NO. MP 13x'11,. 3:1 BLOCK
NANDINI LAYOUT
BA.?*~I(}AL(f)E£ 560 £196. PETiT'f£,%5E\3§?{KA. " TA
{By Sri. H NEELAKANTA RAD, AD\ri§. ,,
____ ....
M25 Lc)1<A~sInI<SH;s.:\§.»a TRUST -- _ .
NO. 2, RESDDENCY ROAD --
BANGALORE S60{}2,.5'*.._ ~
BY ITS SECRETARY. ., 2 [IRESPONDENT
(By Sri. s V SHASTRI ‘Am-?,’j .. ‘
PI:*I’r§fi::¥:w’~.:S’ UNIDER ARTICLES 226 AZ\:”[)
22? or-‘ ‘rzm* ;:0NsT1?1jUI10N*~ –._€__)F« “INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE GB4sEE.VA1*:0N THAT “RE-INSTATEMENT IS NOT
THE ANSWER T0 2_11s.<:LA1M"";=xs CONTAINED IN PARA-Li op,
AS1.«;ARD~ AND s3¢gNrj:ss: AWARE? IN ANX-A nxz REF. NQ.
13352005 A}€_E'.EIC. """ M'
COMING QN FOR PRELBXJLYNARY
}iEARL€G B "G_RQf'JP THIS BAY, THE = COURT zvxamz TI~H;€
,.,VF0LLQw1NG;.'*}.':._-
9.3.1
A = .Tf1%;se tws writ petiiifins are directed against flu: award dated
% -»£}§.1c_2_.%2996 in reference N9. 129/2005 passed by the Laban: Court ai
fiarxgaiere directing payment of iumpsurn compensatian af Rs.4~5,6$G:’-
with interest at 6% per annum.
%””\”
2. ‘&€.?. No. 96845239? is flied by the managreznent. WP. N0.
53935298? is filed by the workrnan. In thig judgment, for G{)nV’€ni€flC3,f£}’i+$
management is referred as petitiener aneti the werkman is refgrred’-:%;s;.3 ..
respimdent.
3. The gaetitioner appointed the 1*esp0nd¢1:£’it1*the year }_V;9′ 8 ‘?’ ;.a;:; Suhék
editor. Tha Respondent was an have up t<.§'.Q8:;..i'1Zi99§';– :
reqaest cf the respaniient fer eXtensicfi»ef iee;§'e $A*f2V'l;§._'i':?,_";f';£}'At£i:;€i5A ':§.i_:zi;:<:~wt3£é
respondeni: rernained unautherisfidly ggtialss 'c§r.3,;'g§s; were
issued, enquiry was held and OflV1'{}'.'V:*fl1(§§92§'é.§fi?§§':@%3fif_§*£3$ terminated
fiam servicai Agg'ieved_'L:»:;}11is Q;'de'r of fégpondmt raised
a dispute befefe §.fh.f2 jjécxf'; éféfénce under Sses:-{inn
1s{1;(<:) mg gm fine sacs for Sheri) Vida
G0Vemmenié:'_:i§1"éaIed .1 basis of pleadings, the Labour
Caurt fi*am_e<:i an Lafidi¥i§na'§_ i:sf:::§e".1*é1ating to domestic: enquiry. Cm the
"aci;iiti0n§:fI§":is'sE£1_;c:: bath thAé"'1";z*.-zrtixzs' adduced avidence and the Labour Court
hgfkdé addiiio-m§.i.:séu§ in afiizmative mtizxg that the domestic enquiry as
fai1"'an:i'__pt§p:fi?:–« both the side and on apprsciaticm 3f the
n2ateri§al..§r; re.::-z=z*}&L,i'..-tl'T1Ve Labour Court helé the temfinatian cf respondent
servica égiilegal. Sims there was fieme deiay in raising the dispute?
V ' fl§§:..£;7a£#@a;;' Céfirt gamed Iumpsum compensation in 3316:: sf reinstatement.
'.'_;'~'§._gg1iVe$;*e:i: by the entire award the petitianer fiiad WP. N0. 96S4£?,(}O?,
réspandazzt iiiefi WP. No. 5393!2()O?' baing aggiewd by that? deniad {if
V' A ». iféiief of rainstatement.
<f}V/V
4. Heard arguments en the side of petitioner and pemged the entire
writ papers.
3. The LabourCo1:rt afser hoiding the domestic enquigy as f3i:fan}:1′-..
proper examined the perversity ef the fndings of Enquiry .
Labour Court noticed the factth;-:1: the Enquiry Officer ve*itEmatv–
the dacumeais pmducad by the respondent gavL3_ his:r::g;;,:ivrt. ffiii:_é1Gc1:rn’€:nts ;, .«
produced by the rsspondent establish Vtimfact fi1:._1;t”‘£%1e ,Vg¢.:1uifj;e
reasons of his medical illness for his unéiifixfiiissd abfs’esx1;_1¥:=;”I’i1e:§_,abou:~
Court alse neticed the fact that the_’§}isc’i;3§§.x}a1f}7″~-Authoring liéd taken
into mmsiderration the finanaiai trat1s’3i;tit:§:S}:’€f tkI:2. r%:3;§ot:éient which was
not the subject mat36f”:Qf.’–chaf ‘os3nsiderat£en extraneous matters
which we Gu:si’cI§ the séapé frsf For these reasons the Labour
_C<3urt hfi}ji.;1.E}u'£ai§.ih€feffxkiifiiviiin (if resmndent fiom service as iliegal. This
..f1z{diz:g:éf : i.e;"i3i:*1;r Cam is in accerdance with law and I fnd no
justifiable grG!!ii}€iJf:0 ii1~:e:ffsra with the same.
_Labi;_u:' (four: whfie ganiing the lumpsom campensatien
_ hag taken in{0'«:_eénside1~ation the menthiy salary {sf ihe respondent, his
I '¥:,)i'7-._service and the illegal termination, '"Fh¢z*ef0re the iumpson
_ 'cém§.§n$$£ion of Rs.45,6{)Gf-»– awarded by the Labour Cami cannot be said
' "'a§§ Either arb:E£:ra;r'y or iiiegai. The Labcur Court whiie awarding the
&f\,
iumpsum compensatien had rightly balanced the interest of bath the
petitioner and the respondent.
T2′. F01′ the reasens stated above, both the writ petitions .ag’¢;”ii¢reb f{‘~
rejecied.
LRSEIGIIEQGS. é