I W.P.NO. 16968/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF' IKARIIATAKA A1' EAHGALORE DATED TI-I13 THE 18" DAY OF JULY 2008 BEFORE THE Homnm uxwsncn rm. nausea. ' W.P.lI0.1.6968[ 2005 |g| BETWEEN : THE DIVISIONAL CONFROLLER K.S.l?2.'I'.C KOLAR DIVISION KOLAR . '~ BY ITS CHIEF' LAW OFFICER . _ rx*mm!mn (BY SR1 N.K.RAMESH,ADV.) ; ' AND: _ RSBELAVADH1 .. 2 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS" L * _ S/0 SHIVANAPPA. ' .. Div'.RAMAC3-IA1~¥DRfiPPP;::QOM_PG1}ND"----~.... PATELBEEJDHI 2. _ . URGANPE? 0 . ' (BY SR1 s1.13.MUI<§<ANNAVPPA,'AD9v.1 .,mLE§' U¥-EBER ARTICLES 225 85 227 OF THE 'COfAW$Ti'lu'U'IfI'0i5I -Q}<*~.IIflDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARE) v1a.%a:--«.;;N:§}A,.i.~DT. 30.10.04 BY ma II ADDL. LABOUR coUS<*1f,"BA:~zCuéx':;g'.)I:9'E §N IB.N0.48/01. THIS 'K71? COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, f ' coxgm MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER
W.P.NO. 16968/2005
This writ petition by the Karnataka State Rmgi
Transport Corporation is directed against the
dated 30.10.2004 passed by the 11 Addi%:iona}..”‘i:;at:i§1 .:::;¥.?” ~
Court, Bangalore,inI.D.No.48/2O0J:;~By4t11é§.ifi;fi>§igfiéd.’_}é.
award, the Labour Court has aflowtéci ?”
by the respondenvconductor of
the Industrial Disputes» . ‘[‘as” ariiendezi in
Karnataka] challengng passed
by the pefifionegfi
absence for to 29.7.1999
[69 days]V;V”I’hc;: aside the order of
dismissalTL data: and has directed
reinstatement'”‘ of service but without
The was directed to be fieatnd as
If no leave was available. to treat it
1 as allowance. It is statcd that drum’ g
pendsfiey of this writ pefition, the respondent
‘V the age of su :;§fi’on and till the age of
W.P.NO.16968/2005
superannuation he received the benafit as A4
under Sectiosn 17-8 of the I.D.Act. _
2. I have heard the learned ‘A 7
and perused the impugned 3
Learned counsel appearing for
that on the facts the not
justified in of
punishment. from €316:
service. It reasoning
of the the order of
. V. regébrt of the enquiry oflicer has
mind to the facts and
aw ofthe case mac’ pendently and
0? y come to a wrong conclusion that
of the fist party workman was
Vabove, the enquiry qflieer hirnself has fitted
mm omgioaze produced by the first
party workman being the reason for his
/
5&7
w.1=>. NO. 16963/2005
absence. Under these circumstances, the
disciplinary autharity ought not to
imposed a severe punishment like ” ‘ ‘
from service against the first party 1:./.11′
is also pemnen’ t to note here A_ ” A
1.1.1975 to till the
19.12.2000 he has not bee.111tgmzu¢a1a;e
misconduct
of the cnrporcttton’ . the
above, that tfge verder”bf 1 by
the seconel iiabte to be
full ‘Of service and other
“tit. counter statement have
._ unauthorised absence of the
I étierfkmwz on 8 fibres in the past
3 days to 74 days between
Octebeig. 1991 to Novernber 1997. The fix-st
_ Looking to thepast misconduct of
first party workman and the facts and
c:’rcumstanoesoftheease, Iamoftheapinion
SAM
W.P.N0.l6968/2005
However, he is entitledfor continuation ofhis
3. On. the facts of the case, it cannot be’
the modification of punishment mafia :7
Court is arbiflaly to
extraordjnaxy jurisdiction, of Artkfies
226 & 227 ofthe consmufiag;
Pr] ~Ata