IN THE HIGH comm: OF KARNA'i'AKA AT BANGALORE Bates! this the 29" day efJuly, 2999 Before 3 V H112 HHEWBLE MR JUSYICE HULUVADI G Writ Peiilion 503:' x 2!}'r'»"*?""tf.»Ter}'.4"4 4' 1 - Asst. Conservator of Forest Ravindranagar (DIDB) _ Neat Adichunchanaglri Cozrzantnxityfciai} Hassan 573 291 2 ChiefCcmservator ofForé'st T - '- Aranya Bhavan, 18* Cross _ V Malieshwaram, Ba1;galom"3" * -- 3 Dy_cm. Sm Social 1&»£al1eshwaratn,~ Bmag3Eore.. . . é ..--~ 4 Stat; of KL&rnaial::.a_~'--;.- .P4':.§r€s.t?.}}t:partit,sa:_rVt, M S Building V. ---------- -« Petitimiers 1:31.: kgadigsin zgnzgnamgg GA) D Rmgégavéfia Q2 late Deva Cinwda " 1 ' " --R}'e Kedaiu mirage & Past ., = . ' Aim 'i'a£3;k Raspondmt SB Mum" amappa, Adv.) This Writ Petition is filed lmder Art.226?227 afflne Camtitzttion ti) quash the arder dated 14.3.2006 in 3)}? 2311995 by the Laban: Comt, Citickmagaiur. JR), This Writ Petition earning on for hearing this day, the Comftiiag following: f ORDER
Petition is by the Government assaiiing ‘p;§:§se3 Bj£«.iii£:
Labour Court, Chikmagaiur in II) 23;1995._pre:e§ing¥:,~gV:e;z;}st:s:;gm¢;;; :31″ the *
workman to his original post.
Workmzm _ioincd_t_hc a3,a Waiclfifiati :i;.%i.1992. There was
refusai of cmploytncgité Q53? o:fte1’m: ” 1992. On such refusal”
of empleyment ifiig reference during May 1995,
Labour Com’: Workman approached this
Court by way remjited the mattcr back to the
Labour con;-_t. iznuur rejected the neibrmce during
came to be remitted by this Court by
i§.su’n§g:.z§i peiition filed during February 2006. During August
V2006, allowed the reference and ordered for
reizxstatexnéng Hence’ ‘V this petmen’ ‘ .
that: comsel representing the parties.
W
2«s,«3« mg 3
According to the Govcrmnent Advocate, the
completed 240 days of service and he is not entitled either
or notice as required and the award ofthe Lalfoiii’ Com W ¢
Per centra, counsel representing the V{f§)fi€;£:l’£.3×1″‘Slll3II§ifi€f1; as maiégr
of fact” finding Laboux Com has come’ :51 1116 §ioz1_cfu.sipn F
put in more than 240 days of service i$ of vésmployatnent
without any netice. the ordered for
zveinstatement which dogs not ca}; ‘ v ‘V
It i; nut ixxTA€ii§sp:2t:; Vihc was working under the petitioner for
some time 015 wages,-L’ a matter offact finding the Labour
Court czgraa go tflé c§1r;¢i1:$i0:.i’thé.i the werkman has worked for more than
v -33-ézach of this Court referring to the decision of the Apex
Coaft £hc_ §{)fTS!:aJ:%fi Vs Executive Engineer, PWB — 2095 (3) LL}
‘~___5-22, has gggga that on such coxnpletiem sf 240 days, although me Workxnan
be entiflcd for reir:stai¢ment ma, rciicf could be rmzmided in lieu of
V’ as, he éoufd not be absorbed by indirect method.
U}7L£«./x,»
Ceunsel regrescnting the workman has reiicd upon a decision in WA
56952008 decided on 21.3.2008 contending that in such circurnstanes,VRfi_» 1
iakh compensation has been awaxéed in lieu of reinstatement.
In the case an hand, the workman worked for only 24!} –. ~
workman has also moved heaven and earth apprnaching Véevéifal
times seeking for reiief and in the process 20 yeais If: fiééiaisd’ 1;’
spent sufficient money. It would be appiiépifigte to” cmrxapensaikf’ hit{;..ig1vV$t€§ad %
of reinstatement.
Petition is 1$13:;~’wVe;1V While setting aside the oréfir of
reinstatement, “is (:a*:i_.e§1*n*A-§:iV. /ft1a{1:¢5’g¢i21ent shall pay R.s,S0,00(}f- as
compensaticn in twe”rn9nt§as;’
sd/..;
fudge