The Divisional Controller vs N Nagaraj on 29 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT 014' KARNA'I'AKA AT
BANGALORE 

DATED THIS THE 29"" DAY 01? JULY%'2£:o9j%V%%%%k: %

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUs'r1c1.«: 

WRIT PETITION No.11623%<§12' 2e0§3*.LK}* %   
BI:1T'WEEN:    A % % 

The Divisional Controflgl'; -_

KSRTC, Kolar }j)ivision,"  ' .

Koiar.   '
Represented    _,    
The ChicfLa{V     

Bangaiorg-S60Q2'_'f_.V3V.VA  _ _* ..PETITIONER

(By Sr{G,A.K.G9§v§§a, 

539; 

._ V  'H  A ..., V
  %¢kcr¢n¢;~a1%k3L¢c:e:ary,
' BMTCV &."St3"£_e§ 'Workers Union,

Cxzamadcvgiixa Road,
Chikiyzaimavalli,

V AB;anga§m"'c-560004. ..RESP(}Ni)ENT

 '~_(Bj;u'Sri,L-Shekhar, Adv.)

This Writ Patiticm is filed under ArticI<-:5 226 and 227 (if
the Constituticm of India prayisfg to quash the award dt.l2.8.06
W

 



passed by the industdal Tribunal, Bangalnre sh I.D.Nn. ET'3{}{'G3,
vide Ann-D to this WP and grant such other relief or  

This Writ Petition coming an for prclim§::22'iijs<VVhé¥é:1:¥ing -, 

'B' Group this day, the Court madet§3éA'f<)1§oyviAng;.  _ V  .

0RDE§g 

This petition is b3_/'the Mafiégcaagnt  award
passed by the max.' Tribunaxj, Baa;3a:;2o}eki;i%%}'§.zzmo-1 30:03 dated

12.8.06

.

2*.’ Who is a traffic ccmtrolkzr

withutfif. ~ i.:”;tn the entries made by the

Conductor the same and fate: it is noticed that

. \; cef’1d;_xctor« Vlfiiéfiinot made entry with regard to 20 tickets

‘of’_R$.2:?;=.dvesiixniination, as such enquiry was held and on the

basis if enquiry report the Management imposed a

R ‘Apugishvihsvent of wifl1h¢3iding one stage from than basic pay with

‘AA’-rffiirrisulative effect- The same has been assailed before the

M ;TribunaI. The Tribunai having notcd that there was no

intanticn on the mrt of the workman to cause less to the

AW”

Corporation but it is due to oversight and aecnrziingly, nréered
to withhold only (me increment for a period of
Being not satisfied with the said award the
befi;1rethisCourt. V’

3. Heard.

4. The learned upon the
decisien reperted in in the case of

V.MahadetIauAV.Y’§_:T§;e Qiiiecter, KSRTC to contend
that eycie: ‘passed without referring or

consi_d_ering “‘~.to” the, representation of the wmkman without

V’ _, “Qt’mirrd”is”iiai3ie to be quashed.

5, learned Counsel appearing for the Management

relied.’ flue Division Bench judgment ofthis Court repartcd

Vii}’..1:’:992″II LL} 265 in the case er HAL vs. szmmugam and

V% enotiaer and contended that when the person pleads guiity of the

W