IN THE HIGH C()'UR'I' or KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 06"' DAY 01? A[fG{IS'1;.' %
THE HOEWBLE MR..ms'r1(:E
WRIT' i'E'I'I'l'l0.N _
BETW'EE:N:
The Management of
M;'s. Minerva Mills, V V 1
Unit Bf Nafi0nalATcxfils"" " " ~ " _
Cafperation 'V
PB.No.23§i'€),"'1$.4:ig2s%;§_é _ %
Bangaiore-§.6(}0'£{f3. " .
Repre:se11'£cdAVby iiffi: " _
Geneital Manag;t7:'~;w.__ "a ~ I ..PETITI(}NER
(By Sri. S"wf.11n§«f &
» ;Sré,N.Ramac h"andra,
' SEO Sfi.G,_}§iar;:yanaswamy,
'Aged abaouijfifi years,
Res:_idi:3_g«:1ea3' Shanimahanna Temple,
Ranganafhapuza, Kaznakshipaiya,
Bagzgaxare-s6oo?9. .,.RESPONl)EN'I'
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Cunstituéon sf India praying to quash the impugned award
1?"
passed by the Laixzur Cnurt, Bangalnre in I.D.N0.49s'1998
CR2} 335 (vide An;}--~G).
This Writ Pctéticm coming van for hearing this.
Court made the faflowing: ~
ORDER
The petifioner-Management ha}; sc§;’ig3’ft fiat fliaf
order dated 21.3-05 passed by
£23 I.D.N0.49:”98 and for sugh 0thAer-;éi’i~ef%~.. .
2vV.”‘A}§3gi’t:1g {iif’4::”-mfigiinduét”fifabusing and mishatacliing
the c{)–§§<orker,' an"é:ir..qfli«tf§'–~ held and having {hand him
guilty the w{ir§:;_i2az"; WaSv.di§ifiissed from service. The said order
""AWa§V:L'–s;h&1'ieng2§i béVi"£ifé"'fhe Pr}. Labour Court, Bangalnre- The
enquiry has held that enquiry held is fair and
profzer, §;ov«e9§»ér, it has came to the conclusion that there is no
.L..':e1.fiTd.e::3c¢"';Mith rcgaré ':0 the: ailegaiion that every day the first
.' axing fiithy ianguage to his co–workers resulting ix:
"i¥npIeasan1; situatian tn the fellow workers 1:0 vmrk with him. It
has alga nczticed that assuming that the workman had
55/
manhandied 0:13 Rangappa, {he compiainant and turn his banian
it is not established in the enquiry as to who was
and that it must have happened in the spur.v_{)f'{he _m{§n:ent:
Accordingly, it was ofthe View thaéjhfize __of1'
disprogvortionate and orde1'ed f:1; rei'isst2'1t:::z2cr1;t"'V'%2c{§'(jf1_ L.
back wages.
3, Head tha vCoiz3:’sc§» fcfar “None reprcscnis
the respondgznf. 44 * ”
Accerdivng ‘}.§:ii”:qéd Cmmsei for the petitioner the
IQ in C/M;%-»% . %
ps’t1t10ner»Iv’Ia_;:a.g¢n:mi._g’Aeiosczde, The mcxdcttt as said ta have
p}$:ce.__on 23.’5v;9–6;’ noticing that there is no evidence an
1’e§ard that workman was gainfufiy employed it has
to. §aéyf30*3*’a ofback wages. However, when the enquiry
~.is held and proper exnnerating the werkmmz only an the
that nothing has been placed on record {:3 establish as to
VA ..,i§£}d6f whose instigation the workman has committed the
misconduct is not cerrcct. In the circumséianoes, in nrodification
W,
Bkp.
01″ £116 impugned award it is ardered that the workma::;¢”‘»i$ not
entitled fer reénsiatezncnt. However, the “7shua!!M_
settle the tenninal benefits of the w0rkman_.tr3a:fi§2.g: Aa:;_:(u:»n~»
duty fiom the date of his ciismissailyfiil -t%3A¢:’aficafd’ V(3’f th?$§’L}-l,.aE:é3_x’I’r
Court. He is not entitled fd:”«-.:_;.o::sc”:t:j:Iéra*tial
continuity nfservicc only for thajfixrgxwge of;tcr:ni11al}beneiEts.
5. Accordihgiy, is::a'l.Ifn_s§r'6ii
.... ~