High Court Karnataka High Court

The Management Of Abt Parcel … vs P Kumar on 3 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Abt Parcel … vs P Kumar on 3 December, 2008
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 gAND i~ 

 1§;';;'Q 'F&N.J.AN~A  ._

V _BANG£s;£.O§2E $50 0229

IN THE HIGE mum' 012' KARNATAKA AT BANc;gxL<:.;F§~Eijj  ;, A' 
same "ms THE 3% BAY OF DECEMBER  . T
BEFORE %% '  M » .' %
THE I~iOf'~I'BLE MR. JUSTICE A s"BopA;m.é'  "  

wan’ PETITION Ne. 4?§i”;§:§é;i:2<3-93 (L.+i§'E3S)

BETWEEN: _ _ _ V "

THE MANAGEMENT ;éAx~;.’~ *

3.. PETITIONER

{By SE31 J ii>i3ADEEPwK£;’-$»i’A 1%;-1.a;§{:’J§ FOR
M/S KA$1’§JRI.ASS{3Cf.A’F§}_S}

ifi’:mpe;1sati{$33.__’céf ‘when it had noticed that the

iiras ‘i3″gr.t thztzught the punishment was

– ‘.’€1¥’3§j3¥:%E}{)§#j%)Iia§;%.e3~- and thczrcaiier gxantcd cmzlpansatixm. The

r¢sp6’~;_;1¢i::”‘~«_<;1;;c$T':;'-mt pmdwzed material about his 11:113..

yv _empIéi3*meIriid1§1ing the period when the mattm' wafi panding

" H " t31€2I;ab:m»ur (3-ou:rt,. The Labcsur Court 3h:.:ru1d have

M of am length of sclvice which itzafi hem: rendered

the date of diemxissal or such other -::1'ite:ria efiafi aver

L

'1

W-'J

servicfi, if at all such huga mmpensafian was if) .

but the award does not izxdicatc any 1;a§:i;3_.

6. in the iflfiféillt case, it is ;f1ot ;iiL=:3:»t1i4t_:.é

1′!3SpO1}€.’1¢311t was appcintsd on 19813 i13 f§;é V

past (If Assistant Fitner, he :.V-123.’§v,s§_,iV¥3:37.
Themfore at best, in afi in yams
of anal during the’ 313.0 been
awarded iighfcr i>_S?as_§__iéiv’-vzwivcd in similar
mriscanduct, F was

7. T_’fi1atv “§f§:c;.1:i1’e33 to be noticed is that

the I\3S:j{3€)11tu1V’€Ev1’1_f’I; ha§fi._ the Vehicle heiongng to: the

.-v..petiti§:z§*::1j_i1}1§a1:&io::i$§§;13;y’ even tlmugh ha did nut possess

also catlscd damage t0 the ve}_1:icl@

petiti0r:e1-Compa11y by invgiviilg in

.az::<:i¢:i:;-321:, 1i1"fii1:£s regard, them is no r;Iisr:.u:ssion whatsaever

VV ' * rim igébcvzlr (301111 since when the chargfi af causing

_ ::_ac.'.Z(:fi:c:ié:nA't and causing damage: to the Vehicle of the employer

I

'we

was p1'£;)v«:':ci, the Labour Coin': cculid 1101: have casuafly

awarclcd 3 imgc: compcstnsattimm 91" Rs.'?5,()O{)/ –.

8. Thamfore, to the said extent, the asr;z::Ii ::flJ}JIefi1:§: by ”

the Labcnu’ Cm.1:rt cazmof: be égglataixfiédl’ hi ._’E’-*i.::4:’v+,:eer§_:r,V., .’

cozasidczing the fact that the La}3ca;1r “hati

di3C}’C1LiOI1 under Section i1~A”A’tfi? Vwhad
tllfimately thought it . rélicf of
minstatemcnt, c0:11pe11s»a£i§:>_1:;’§:l1ough I havc
not approved ‘.*:£_z«£1é:a:tn&},_f :fI1a:V_ Ljé2§}§o1t1* Cfiourt. has
awarded this View that it W-svuid be
3’ust and: by taking an

overall viciéixf (inf tbs

E__i ‘T};erefr.§ii:,v.._._:I3#: awazd dated 5.5.2093 stands

til) the amend party~311anagemm1t to

péxy’ Rs.?’$”5,0%/ ~ 13 heid as net sustaixiable.

‘insizafi H .’ éseccnd party-management shall pay the

A

c

15′ ~.

campcnsatiaix of Rs.2S,O{}G;’- (Rupees twenty

only) to the mspondant.

With the above 1noc1ificy¢21t;ics13A:,”._’t11r::;w_A. * ‘V

dispmcd sf with no elder as {.0 _ti3;i_fs pe.fifi<33;1_fi ii

sd/-e
A"°:: g3J {§ Iudge

Earp] bans '