.. .....r...«..-n. nu." - uvunu vu ur|lll1l.nl"Il.l"\l\!'I nlvn wnvulli V!' nflfllifllflflfl !'lIL'!l"'l QUUKI U!' IKRKNAIRJKR HIGH (J IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA cmcvrr BENCH AT GULBARGA..._ 4* . ':- DATED THIS THE 313? BAY OF oCrc>i3i§§R. :2}o'(35S -- BEFORE" '_ V _ THE HOPPBLE MR. JUSfigE5.5J'iT WP. NO. BETWEEN: .' 1. Chief Execufive Oi1'"§e::e1*., Zifla Panchayat, Gulb-argcéy 1 Pankaj Kumar Phaniiag " " Aged ab9ui«.3S yearsfi .. 2. Panchayatrajn Engg. Division, i'i,._ -- ' 53¢! '4r3}'f3aV1i'3}"S«. " 3. Assisiantv Exetsutives Engineer, ; Zilja Panchayat Engg. Division, _____ A & SfiiarajiA.Amba.ji Kow , " --» A.ge:.4S_ years. PETETIONERS - SR2. SAQJEEVKUMAR C. PATIL, ADV. FOR SR1. MB. , .N A;RAGUND 815 Sm. SONA VAKKUND, ADVS.) AND S Sharanappa, 'Age :'3_3yjeaj;*S, R/0 H.No.11-880, V. _ ' -- .Nca:~W"atcr 'Tank, Basavauagar, -Gu.1b}arga. RESPGNDENT 4: ;=(BY Sm. M.C. NARASIMHAN ASSOCIATES, ADVS.) This Writ Petition is fileé under Articles 226 and 227 of the Consfitution of India, praying to quash Annexure 'B' the awani in Reference No. 188/2003 dated 15.10.2005. - ..T_f.-- _- ._ u... .---...--..u--- -u-wu Vuuwrualts v; I\ru\II.r\u"|l\l"| nlvn \.u\lIJI'[l 5.)!' filfiltliliiflflfl l"IISa!"I LUUKS U!' fiflflfiflffllm HIGH C' This Writ petition coming on for Preiiminaxy Hesaiing in 'B' Group this day, the Court made the foiiowingr " . ORDER
The petitioner is 25113 Panchayeth ,5; =
of the State. The petitioner is queefionjigg the’:
by the Labour Court, copy ofwlgich n
!B)’
2. The matter the ntazmer:
The mepogqjient to “ti1e,,V.fformer employee of
the petitioiiersgg-§”‘V_», ‘has’ filed a chaun’ petition
befoxe 3 be seen. from the
averments fi3.ac§e_ fie _f3e.tt1ion that he had worked for
a peziod bet\veeia.,?Jo=re:11;_be:’ S1992 to November 1996 and his
t€:_rmifi.éited…oI1 27.11.1996. Hence, the c1aim
is, year 2003. The Labour Court having
the petitioner had worked for over a
treated him as permanent employee has
thewoxder of termination and directed reinstatement
Workman as Work Inspector within a period of
t t§=§fo”‘titonths from the date of its publication. But however,
claimant-respondet1t was denied backwages for the
period from 2′?’.1I. 1996 till expiry of 2 months coming into
force of its publication. But however, the respondent was
entitled for admissible wages for the Ielevant his
reinstatement.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the ..
that the respondent was workingijn
the said project having cozise to e3:1 end, thee ofj
reinstating the mspondent doeséiot He f1ae:’;’e]ied on a
r1111I1′ g of this Court {DB) “in vt11e case of
Dharwad Zilla others Vs.
Firokhan A,»
4. award passed by the
Laboier [the averments made in the
petition as wefi go in before the Labour
Conn disclose was appointed in a time
Eti:11d:VV’o3;gce t1«1ve’i)«1«’oject is completed the question
of with ail other necessary benefits
.V::’ACé;”ta3’niyA\?9*ou1§1- As this Court in the aforesaid
” -éleoieican has obéewed thus:
‘ ‘ “” ‘” ‘ “‘ “””‘ “‘ “”‘ ” “”””‘ “””‘.-‘-“T'” “” “””” “‘””””” “””‘” “”””””‘ “7 ””””””””””””””” “”W'” “-“-‘9′” Ur 535551353 |’|!U|’5 I-JUUXI 0|’ KRKNATAKA HIGH C1
‘ ‘fI’he stains ofthe respondent, at best, can
VA termed as that of a daily wager by virtue of
letter of appoiniment and on tennination, he
seizes 10 be a workman. Even, otherwise, it is
fiurth/er to be noted that there was no sanctioned
post in existence to which the respondent was
‘– Rnvj’3I._1a§8[‘ez§{‘1 108*
. nun \….V_-,s.:}’.IrI\! ur RHKIVIHIAIVA n-man COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF !(fiaRNA’l’AKA HIGH C
The daim is based on invooatien q” sympathy offlourt
on any established legal rights’.
6. I am of the vksw that tm
jusfififi in accepting the a.pp1icatio11V}._ 7-[A
law laid down by this Court as ,IW.-a.i:n %
of the View that the imptmd the ¥;iab<3ur
Court cannot be sustai13£,;r§l.f"':%'– L'
7. Accordinglyg’ 31$; “The
impugned ‘B’ guashed
Ru 1é”iS”i3§§n_¢dA abcgéfiim.
sdl-»,,
3116.69