High Court Karnataka High Court

Divisional Controller Raichur … vs Anilkumar S/O Dakanna Basutkar on 4 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller Raichur … vs Anilkumar S/O Dakanna Basutkar on 4 February, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
  7. C.f Constitution Of India, praying to quash the award

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA fi _  
DATED THIS THE 04%?-A DAY OF FEBRUA}§%Y-- f2Q'._1__'O1' " 

BEFORE

I-IONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAAI S;}IAI+ITAI¥:AC;O-IIVDAIRA'

W.fP.No.8182.9./20AO9 {L I

BETWEEN:

DIVISIONAL CONTROIJLER
RAICHUR DIVISION,  _   I 
NORTH EAST KARNATAKA. S'IiATE?RO.AD.;.j.. 
TRANSPORT COE?_PORATi€JN:;I REP; BY 'I_'1fiS'  "
CHIEF LAW      
SARIGE SADAN, ;§;U,LBARGA.  

. PETITIONER
{BY SR£"SUDH1RSIi$?G¥I" «R«;VIJAPUIR,": ADVOCATE]
AND: 1 '  V 4' V '

. S] O DAKANNA BASUTKAR,
~  AGE: 43 YE3ARS_,;OCC: E:X.CONDUCTOR
R-."C.No,901, NEKRTC RAICHUR DEPOT No.2
~  R/'O BRAHAMANWAJ, TQ. MANVI
'DIS'i'i' R?AI($HUR.
' '   .. RESPONDENT

=I<=i<*

Writ Petition is flied under Articles 226 <31 227

E\J

of the Labour Court, Gulbarga dated 25.11.2005-3'.-in KID
No.250/2003 (Annexureefil). T'

This WP. coming on for orders this

made the following: »»

onmmyy

The award of the Lah_o1.rr ceuet, ou1be.:f'ge. Kind'

No.250/2003 is called in in.tiiis:V'_'y\r1fit petition
by the PetitionerMar1–a§etn;–ehnt; Said award, the
Labour Court_'\S¢t aisidettddismissal and
Consequently, to reinstate the

workm xiii t.:h0u–t.' 'oackwage's.

2.’ “The the Conductor working in

the ..petition:er’~Manageinent. On 1.6.1995 while

‘i V. °’~co”ri’d’uot’ing’..the bdsmNo.Fm47 on Raichur to Atkur route

by the respondent was checked by

the-«…sq1;ead.VdofA the petitioneremanagement. It was found

the; respondent had failed to issue tickets to 20

” , ‘ ‘passengers who are travelling from Raichurw ‘1 to

_ \
/ \
/ ?

/ ‘.1′

\:§.__~M’.

disciplinary authority. Out of them 18 cases are serious

in nature. The respondent is already punishediyfn. 34

such default cases. In spite of t:he_;’sa:nel,:

respondent has not improved his thew.

matter on hand, despite

from each of the 20 .7tic_ketlesys'”

respondent did not choose to”‘issuye ticketed.’ In View of
the same, this Court-he-i _of’l._th;_e that interest of

justice will be mete-if~v…theV’– directed to

withhold ci;;n’iu1ative effect of the

responVdeentt;A» thelollowing order is made:
l ORDER

The petitioner’ is directed to withhold five

1i’~-lI’1CI’€1I11.t§1QtvS with cumulative effect of the respondent.

Rest of__*the7 award made by the Labour Court. remains

unaltered. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

§
§
§

6

In View of the disposai of main petition,-”

=.Misc.

Application does not survive for consic:1eratioIq,_ ‘

3JUDGE L