High Court Karnataka High Court

Assistant Executive Engineer vs Surya Kanth S/O Rachappa on 21 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Assistant Executive Engineer vs Surya Kanth S/O Rachappa on 21 July, 2008
Author: N.K.Patil
EN THE HSGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CJRCUIT BENCH A7 GULBARGA

DATES THIS THE 213*" DAY or JULY     "'f  2
BEFORE      
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE' MK. réA"i%iL%'T    

WRIT PE-'.'!'!T!ON N0. 19165"pf 2937 f'L-%T.'éR ); ': '~:1 'i _

aewwaeaz 
-: ASSISTANT EXECUTNE Ewezmaaé 

ZPE§ SUB D{Vi$QN.BHAL"KL
BIDAR DISTFECT,  » _

2 ma CHiEF EXECUT!VE_H_GF:F§{2E!§._ 1, 
ZtLLA PAi'~4CH;'-W.¢g_T   
euaaa,  '   .... ..

    '_ PETWONERS

(av saw SHi\zfij,KU§A£xR, AE:'!QCA'f_E)  

AND; V' """      

1 SGRYA KA:m4':§§e_?2A.V ¥«:';-z§$"i='a§x '

AGED ABOUT 3? Y.i-3RAS;' -. " ~

R163 HMML, ' . ~ _ 
3:-:Au<:, E3-QDAFE .D%;S:TRE:'_3T, 

 2 .»-We 7Ex£cuTevE.E_u_<3mEER

-. '-  PR§:.T:3fV$SfQN,
   

_ A . «  _  Resmmaams
{BY saij cHA2qés%AéHEKHAR P PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 ;

V V' § AND SRfl_M.FéE2A&'EEN KUMAR, ADVQCATE FOR R2}

iii!'

V HTHES WRET PETVHON 33 HLE5 UNDER ARTECLES 226 AND 22? OF

V THE CCENSTWUTQON OF £NDiA§ PRAYENG TO {SMASH THE EMPUGNES
 "~AW:XRD PASSED 8? THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFECER, LABOUR
  ,C_IQ_l.,§RT, QJLBARGA {N REF,§\£C}.1%iO2 DT. 955.2%?' AND MARKED AS
" ' . " ANNEXURE B, RN13 GRANT AN INTERN ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION

 ,, "0? THE MPUGNED AWARE! PRSSED BY THE PRESIDENG OFHCER,



going through the material available on file, has aliewed
the reference in part and further directed the petitioners

herein to reinstate the first respondent in service on.-deiiy

wege basis an preveiiing rate of wages within V.

three months from the date ef award eomingijiezf ifiree

its publication. Further it is ciarified

first reependent herein is not.e’er}t¥tied._f!ier enyVbi7eeri(_V

for the period tram 30*’ Aprii we tiii tire epirye three
months after the M-;a”t’.s force on its

publication. it wee aiSQ~–:”£i1§Z§e ciaiment ..

first resrfeehvéeet eieeihet entitiee for centinuity
of eerviee fez’ the 30″‘ Aprii 1995 till the date of

refereeeef _;§eriiec§iV’frei11 the date of reference eheii be

service for an precticai purpeee

Ae:«ree.ptitfse”‘_e§_ee’etery benefits? etc. These twe petitioners

it it «V beintj’ egfirieiged by the impugned ercier passed by the

:j£.a”i:eu;r Court as referred above, have eeeeiied the

of the said order on the greundlthat, the

Viflieebeur Court has accepted the feiee and fabricated

appearing fer peetienere submitted that, in the instant

case eieo, the same elieged faiee Attendance Certificate

eiieged to have been issued by one of the

herein, as referred above, which was reiiee. «.

said writ petitions are produced

case also and hence, the irrieegrnediiesarerd the » ”

Labeur Court is iiebife. to eeide.’end.__Afhr§ matter
requires reconeidererieriiirii _ Court afresh.

Further, he sebrnified has erred in
herding ofeemployer and
employee”befirreeidii-gifiiefjeetifieriereiend first respondent on
the groend «isiweti case of petitiunere that,

first reependen_f wee riefen employee at any point of time

“‘andi:e*rrie5»~Ser’vi.e_e (ierfifieate produced by respendent Ne. ‘i

1ei–eVVfe!ee~ejed tieeeieee and the same is e cencected ene.

_ Thie’«.. reijeveiriiti eepect ef the matter has net been ieeked

‘ .Ve,.i;r:’if<:reervieepreciated by the Labour Ceurt. Therefore, the

.' ireeegined award passed by we Lebnur Gear': is liable to

" ~ '$)ii:iete.

/L

white carrying taut the activities and further, it is
specificaiiy stated that, they do not have any power tc

appoint any empioyee and the ccmpetent authoriiv ta

appoint is the Gcwernment and not the second

This aspect «of the matter has not been ioai-Eiéid.

cansidered by the Labour Court.) if figs

decided the matter witi1cii;t_4geifi’g :i’nto °

Therefere, in View «of non {hes :iiat{*eir’v’Gn.’:’ghe basis
of the pieadings afiiijabieij tiwéi Vimpugned

award passed by thevALa§§:ur’ be sustained

and thegaméisi is Viifiibie’ tqbe s5éi”aéide.

‘Yet as tn why the impugned

awafd.vpas§é;$d_:Vby.Lébé£1’i Ccurt is iiabie to be set aside

.’ V. Vi”gsy””of theivdfitiiér passed by this Ceurt in identical

February 2008 passed in Writ Petition

N§’;’%61,66I:i{){i? cfw. Writ Petition Nc.18164/230?

(Ass,;<.;ist;a'iit Execufive Engineer, ZPE Sub Divisien, Bidar

–‘ Bidar and another Vs. Dilip Kumar and anather

” “End for the reascms sm ereEn_ Therefore, I am of the

10

as expedifiausiy as passibie, at any rate,
within a period of six months, from the date

of receipt of 5 copy of this order.

BMV*