@dA:&%
E
{H TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAJKA AT
mgrmr THIS mm Sm DAY or ocToB;ER;"'
PRESEHT
HOWBLE Mr. JUSTICE vjfi * '
And
!~iQI€'RLE Mrs. Juswisfi-B.v.Vi¢;:§ARi;*:;i{V§§}§' 3
WRIT APPEAL §a.2;23?;2ms(LK)
Between:
Bafigalore EsfietrQpC.f.§.f1f%13 __ _
Transport Ct3If{}f31Tg1t§'§I}.'_ ~ A
Centrai Gfiics; ' ' "
RH-R0ad;?Bangais?r§;"'«.% % .
By its Chiérf Traffic Is:.'{a:1a»gé'13V " __
E€eprs:tsem*:e:i.by'M§,¥:s A' '
S3:1iefLaw Qi'i'ze:rs::;v V ....Appe11ant
._?(:B:.=%_ smi'¢H;m2enuka, Adv}
V; T
L ° S/o.Vt:fikataraj;i
BidL1m7iger::V Read
. .. «géimkai T2:-£31:
' ~B;:a;1g};;:.§re District. mfiespcmaent.
.' Sri K.B.§\Ea.m§'aI1as2=vn1ay, Aév. far Ev'i,i$.M.C.
E Narasiinhan A$so€ia1:c:':s, Adv.)
'E'}:is Writ Appeai is fiifid 11219243: S{'3C.4 cf iha Kaxnataéia High
{Tio':.1r€ Act garaying is set aside thg ordsr paéssed in the Writ Petitiozjx
Fife; 1 1 1 38/2908 Dated 13.2088?
Thssc Writ Appeaig comifig 233:}. §<:«r Qrdsrs befmfi 'Q36 Cofgari,
E31333 (iay, Gap-fa§a Gowfifi, 3' zitziivaréri Tfim f0%;i<::aWi:;:g:-
JUDGMENT
The C€)Ift’€:(3t3Z1€SS of the order of the learned Sig/;g£c:_j’;Iucige
dated 1.9.2003 passed in WP 1 1 1 13/2008 in c9nfn1r}giiig”»?§}:;:°;
pas3<:<i by the Labour Court in ID Ref. N0.}.?\!G3»
Labour Court, Bangalore is chaiieniged I "
various grounds.
2. The first ground Qf girder of the
leaznad Single Judge u the dismissal of
workman on account: of thé”i’e£§1: <5E_V":11za23t}:.¢)'7rised absence from
éuty 1, gvhich was challenged bafare
{E16 Labourfiourt ézxclustsial éispute under Sczctien
10(4A) 03'. the Iiiéqstééil Iiiisiéiitas Karnataka Amendment Act 5 of
x1 'é*88. ghaboglr ta have adjudicated the issue as ta
*%.§§'}2§th%§:1" T. of dismissal was harsh in the given
_ _cifC11iI3},$.fa}1C€'.S' iégr' net that is not done by it. The workman
.;'érg;ai:1ed afxsfint from duty for a peri-ad of 9 menths fellowed by a
habimai absenieaism in as much as he had remaixzfid
.___éaE:}se§:ta:£ from cluty an 11 QC€3a$§E3I1S in the past. Despite provialing
'him an opport1m:it_§:' to impmve his ceuduct by imgmsmg mixxm'
V' gnunishmants 911 fiariier occasions, thé respondent did mat impmve
his mnduci, 'fixereforfi the dificiylinary autharity has éiamisseé
mg
the werkman from stzrvice, after ooasiciefing the aforvzsaici
circumstances, besides the medical cczrtificates produ§§e{if"'§§;-*..A'tl1e
Warkman dié not disclcse as to whether he: had takgiéfi '
an ingatient from 20.5.2000 ta 11.4_.;2<::m mi?'gig,-.i'.';;:*1i£':1g¢;;~3 L.
injury Sufiéred by the Workman did nrit
sanction of leave by producing thr: ffisgzessaiy £"1Q(2'(lf;1€£}tS~.~ ..Hé£1ce, 'it
is U.1"g!:3'1 that the order of dis311i$$:é1lV__d@_§:3 1iGi'« .$1:fl"¢;i" from any
infixmity and themfora E11:-L: .t}"o:f'l.ur’£..
:3. ‘i’V1V1é’$5i1}.=:,v.:€’;1?L<3r u of the impugned award is
that the: dirsciiiaii : Labour C:o11rI. to the apgafiiiazitw
Caargaoratioxi t0"::3_§;{€: i;§*1e::_ 'WC?I'kfli3I1 into ssrvice ccmld act half: 3366:].
'given. igmgur C5"€IIi..fiXC&€d€d in its jurisfictign while directing
the «pmvide an aitemate jab to the workman. 'F135
V s11'n}'ét<:';:"'3;é1aiifsz; j:;sfF'fl1<=: ciispute was Whether the Corporation was
jL1$§'fied4"i;1:"éais.niissing the workman from service. Tharefore, U36
_ '<3;i3:'é:<§tit:),:::.¢ isfiued by the Labour Cizzsmit to the Corparairian is
3f:?o§:1¢€§zis ané unjust cannat be aflawfid to sugtain.
4. The gmund zxrgefi by the ifiazneé ccxunsel for the
V Corperation regarding giving an alternative amploymem to the
Workman coniezzziing that tbs: game sheulé not have been given by
\\x~/
the Labeur Ccaurt is else examined by as with zeferenee to See.38
of the Persons with Disaiailities (Equal Opportuxlities, Pratectican of
Rights and F111} Participatiexlj Act, 1995, which provision flge Act
states to give an equal opportunity to the disabled
Labour Ceurt keeping in View the disability ws%ix:f¢rg:]¢;:t ‘jb;g’ gag
workman on the ‘basis of legal evidencevhen iecarii? h’a:3.__$etV aeide {he T.
Oltier of dismissal and directed t1§;e_ :Corp0re’dio’Ai1’ ‘t§=,”a£€¢1a%
altemafive jab as stated in the operative perfiegi Sf is net
interfered with by the lea1″x1ed.__SiIzg;1e”J’e§C£ge”by receiflmg reasons in
the impugneé order.
5. ‘ij?;rde1″‘fiA;£:~f f}J;e”–I.’ab{:iu1*eC:;)11rt was questioned before
the learned_ Single has rejeeteci the writ petiiien
afiirming the uiiiI;.§1i;1gV’0f the Labour Court recerded an the
–eg3fintez1v_ii-i%:;euS A’ “<3-f_____§1ivspute heiding that' the Workman is
V:i:n2capaCitafevd.Ai.:; i1i$Charge duties as am Asst.Artisan and was
V e:3;fifle€i—-.to Z §'eii1Sf»€i?i1éiI1ent though with a change of dutiee and my
excepfieige 'fie taken to this fzzlding.
” ~ reference to the abcavesaid legai CGI}?1E§E}tiC}}’18 urged an
__ {sf the Ccarperafion, we have caxefizfly examined ‘éhe
V A “5:.1:”V3Eeet:r:1ess of the order 0f the learztized Singie Judge and the awazei
of the Labmzr Caurt with a view gut as 1:0 whether aim