E' 'E! P;-Er OI\E 'i'"'E i1'0"'BL"' IviR.JUS'T'ICE SUBHASH B.A"D1' 7i > WRIT P31 ITIQN flO.18Q80[gQ: BETWEEN: Divismm Coatmller, K.S.R.'I'.C., Bavanagem Bivision. ' ' _e " Now Rep. by its ChiefLaw Oficer," ' V _ V Central 0ffice,K.I-!.Road," _ - ' 'V A PETITIONER <BveSfi~HEI%¢sh Bha#1da=vT.. Adv.) Sri Arjun Singh. - S'/'o late Kama1Singh-3. " _ Aged about 59 years, ._ ' R[¢1t'House1':jN€o.8O, 55*-'I C1095, ---- 1-= b;'atza;ga::,«(.1'a_=;;»*x1t..':ei_,'t:-?.1_1=.=;-;:;.;-., Mysore " RESPONDENT
A Adv.)
e e iv”v”«fVI’his wxiteeufion is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the. Caonstituigion of India, praying to quash the wa..’m’|. dated
16.5′;-2GOA’7~.,_passed by the Prl. Labour Court, Hubli, in
F’ ” « .Re:_,i’,D1Q].–11?!2DQQ vLd.c A..nx.f..’1- ……=-ml etc
-:
“~«.Tiji§ Petition coming on for Hearing this day. the
111/ /i , ‘V 1 L made the following:
.;–__._
An award dated 16.5.2007 in Ref.No.117]2000 is ;. it
question by the Corporation.
2. The respondent was working as iii
Chitradurga Depot. 011 10.12.1993 iieegnductee am¢oma-eggs
at Mysore Depot under the leadershiipo__of_,.voneSri.(3o§.rrinda
and Sri Nagaraj and caused depot .9. this
,__ –.-I–u–J vv new A
regard, an e m iflr W h..ld. Thea. .Enqe”*y €£fieer’ found, the
mspondent is gnihjr _and Diecipiinarjjflnthority passed an
order of puma’ hment :5 increments.
on the questirn ‘f m*v””‘ty
fair and proper. The
_.-.1 __V’-‘ _-.
of orn 10. mg. t’ne_e.vidence led by the Management
. db
and Ex.M’1…i’ound..thau.there is no reference to the name of the
petition1eix_ This’. report submitted by the Assistant
Ofiit-‘er on 12. 1993 i.e. the date on which the alleged
toihave taken place. Even Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-1(a)
the Enquiry Officer were not before the Labour
-the purpose of appreciation. There is no explanation by
Corporation as to why the Seolrrity Qfficer who su..mi..ed
fie” initial -..port has not mferred to the we of th fit1’tio”r.
l_.._ A. ‘
Dy
.. .. ___1_-__1
CLEI 1 11 U
the Corporation as per Ex.M15
are related to subsequent to the alleged incident. The
Court observed that. the Corporation failed to pmduee V A
documents. On consideration of the CVid.CI1C’J;”thC’
found that, there is no legal evidence to the?’
charge and findings are perverse for
4. Learned counsel for ltliafrtlle
respondent has not entered the is
held fair and proper. Labour Court
ought not to have of the Enquiry
Oficer. He the”‘direction issued by the
Labour Court ircteralicr steps. ._..ent..l prmeedings
against
beyond’ fire ‘ofVrefe1″ence__and beyond the jurisdiction of the
Labour
V Gficer who submitted the report on
it on the alleged date of incident, has not referred to
ftlre of the petitioner. There is no material as to whether
respondent had conducted a meeting and cause disturbance
at the depot. In the absence of any material holding charges
proved per se is illegal and not supported by the evidence. f ”
6. It is not in dispute that, Ex.M 10- th_e..it1_i_tial of
incident and name of the respondent is not iv”
report. Though some of the documents, teem
before the Enquiry Officer were not pefore’ It Latiéour
Court and it is found that, nonA..;.p”godulcfion,i’.ofthese documents
has to be held against the Corpomttion; V._S:l:,.ce;.m;i._C;’;rpora..L..n
7. For the.o.Aabove.Vreaso:n’s,»’I”do”not” find any justification to
interfere with the _ofVs’the””_Labour However, the
|–t
I5′
9
i…
I’)
I
;:
!
jd
4
ii
69,
ii
3
‘-0-
Eu
:3
5′
E5′
‘date deparmuentai
i’ A- 4.1.1′-
cas Lu f”vV”‘t’i is not impiemented, is beyond the
scope of”E.aESour” fufisdicfion. The duty of the Labour Court
pass basis of the materials in relation to the
“issiie’–raisedL or refened and can act as executing Court, as the
of award, the remedy is governed by the
dieegcntosiammq provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The
not implemented, claimants have nemedy in law and to
see?
this extent, the direction issued by the Labour Court at relief
No.5 required to be quashed.
8. Aaaardfrqjfjj, ‘s’hi”- ‘s’r’v’fi’i 3′-“iiii’0n is pariiy aifuweci. _
ciireciion to initiate the cieparimentai pmoee£l7ings.fii; ;, A’
quashed and the award of interest: prityfi’ No..3»”‘V’f$A V
quashed. Except this, other part of the ”
*AP/–