IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THiS THE '9.D'*'DAY 01:' NOVEMBER 2003' j _
BEFORE}
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BO_PAN?§A; } =
WRIT PETITION N0.15?247,20'J? ii. 'i'E R)" '&
BETWEEN:
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
MENCIR IRRIGATION {}[ViSI01§I
wsom ' .. 'v ', x RESPONDENT
(E3; gas M C ADV" )
"'rHzs:W'.'FI FILED UNDER ARTKILES 226 AND 227 0? THE
coNs'mm't:.>N OF INDIA maviue TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT
'ANEIAWARD mssao av THE mgoug coum, msomz m
* "RE1?.N€}..143/1999 ma 23.2.2005 VIBE ANNEBLA. BY ALLOWING
_ TfrrI:s'~v.1:4eIT PETITION.
¥i
This Writ Petition eomizng on for Prelimjnaly hcaiing
'B' group, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER
The petzitionem are caning in qucgfion u ” =
23.2.2003 passed by um Prcsiding:=.’:C}ifi¢cé;; 5
Bangalore in Raf. Ncn.143/ Vt ,
2. Hcani Sri Jagdecsh Ttzovegnjizent
Advocate far the petzitirsimgrr ”
counsel for the respondent; VA ‘
3. Z”-.1v_’I1c,_ was before the Labour Court,
Mysore in ‘Raf Nd. that he had walked
as a 13;;7.i982 to 23.9.1989 and thcmaftcr
iii: . employment It was thczefom
mfusal of employment without
pI’|.’}ViSi’£3}.’l5 0f tlw Industrial Disputes Act,
” is sustama’ his and as such the petitiorncr sought for
A T:.it;ir:ata:i-éemcnt in this regard. The Executive Enmeer, Miner
: Division, Mysore ‘3. indicated as the second party
er.
employer. The second party had objected the claim put forth
by the respondent herein. The Labour
considering the sauna, has come to the ooncI11siQfi'”t%:§a_t» _
respondent is entitled to the ntlicf claimed a_.1::d»” ‘« ..
has diwcttzd zeinstatement with hi ” ‘
4. The petitioners herein are thfiixaiéfizffi aggtigvéd ‘V
maid awani. Though several eonififiiivns by
the learned Gvcyvcmmentv’ on
merits to contend that Court
has seriizgusly. flit: bunicn on the petitiener
herein to that féfifiybfidcnt hw not Worked for 240
days and in a.uy’€s_v e1’3Vtin’a case of this nature, reinstatement
3130 urged at the threshold that the
not justified in granting any relief, in a
matte: offméxtixre, since the employer had not been made
5. The learned counsel for the respondent &:rug.h”i:– !:o
justify the awauizl.
6. In that light of the contentions urged, ‘
find l ‘ty insofar as wrangly casting’ tht: ‘£513 K x
petitioner harem” and the nature of fine g’
outset, I do not pmpo-ac ta advéfi:-..§p tlfi
inasmuch as the claim a in ‘fnhsgvéénoc of
impleading the empzoyenf imam maintainablc.
‘l’l1crt;*:fom,” strike the award at
the root. ‘I_:n in the case of ASSISTANT
Exscxmvzéi’ §_«::-1QiN_éE.R” J. MAHADEVAIAH AND
225) has held that such a claim
Labour Coart without impkeading the
eagnfiibyervv is
V’ n in the instant case as already noticed, the
_ A*;:*e$.§v)é5:::ii’icnt hemin had impleaded only the Execufivc
T “is’;ngi21ecr, Minor Intigatirm Department without iznpicading
J)
‘0
the Secretaly, Government of Karnataka, bf’ V
Water Rawourccs. Therefore, since .:§*a3_L
maintaizlablc the awaxd in the; p1cSé£1£{“:xatu;x:::,.”_~A<:§ér1anovt=-< Mk
sustained. Accordingly, the is
quashed. The matter is.__ Court,
Mysore to Heston: the 'R$f provide
opportunity ta f1_1e.–§1s_t the empioyer
as one of the' Cggim and thereafter
co3:1sider_.tl1e £md.. of the same in
aocoxdaiice 'n crI#tcntio21s of the parties are
lefi: opera ta Labour Court.
the 31-a;r(“ics am zvcpzesented by their
__ appear befbrc the Labour Court on
_IO.I2 ;’20(}3 .a3:””the fixst. date of appearance and the Labour
H H ghaii’ fhereaficr mguiatc its pmceodings and dispose of
as expeditiously as possihie by fixing a tinw limit
% ‘far«i;€se1f £31″ disposal of the reference.
J2
‘.4
With the above observations, ”
clarificafions, the petition stands aéi
costs.
Alto