Z 1 -
IN THE HIGH counm or KBRNAIAKA Am fiéfiééfibaz
DATED nus 'THE 10" am or !~I.35.l1;C.?1'-I,, §I.';-:'x"il";':i
E F in "RE. A_
B
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTiQfig§fiBHfi$fi*B:Afii *
$'a-".39. HG. 1fl38%:'2$05 r}$'mlfl3.'§»?G;'E'G05{I:K',
In M. No. 1uaa'a%x2o'cs»sL%=%i
H.K. Kahhu;=. 4 _u¢ ,VV_,
E3.-"0 .,
Aged aiboutt :5r'e»s§;«--.1;a"'; '
E:::-KSP;I?¢''»-I3;:V:i1re..r:,.V '
Hnfig§*H§g5E%£;"KERIC;"*""
Rf: Heh:u1Hafiar¢*-_ '
L?'a.I'V:.'.A'-_.';..':',._ *3.-..*.,'a=%.:_:."~;'_\..=:t. ...PETITI£':&%'ER
is: M»? mmmsnnmtait, "'c';.a'":=1-*3':
: %%%%% 14 «
Thi-a. _I3::i;v:'§:ei*~iona1 Gontmllez,
._ "-'.__I*.fii*u*ii=:.;i_.c:»z:ga'.1 fiffice, K"SR"i'=C,
A V . .. ..RESPONDENT
*~ ?',;En'.II 5__l= E_l;I_:Elil1'!IULL_A_'fi SLTAZELIEE;
"in:-it Ea *-- -'-* file un......"-3
Eirticlea 226 and 22"! aafi tha Cenatitution of
India; praying to meat aside the -order dated
{IE-.1fJ..2DI35 passed on I.I).A.. No.'I1f199"I by the
I~Io:m'Zb1-a Laban: Caurt, Chifkzmagalur Wide
%.:~.1'-.a.--.:'-.1.*.'e- J} ; qaaah the era; 2: Ne .
I':5T.H$N.DS.2816.*'8.r'6'?00 dated 16.8.1997 passed
by the x-aspondent mun-a' xurm Hi"); to direct
reinstatement or the petitioner with all
conaequantial benefits.
.§fldia¢ Ffiayihg
BETWEEN :
In W.P. um. 10390/2006:
B.K. Kabbur
9.3% Sab; ' 4
H.-g-ad -'.=a.bc:'ut SCI ye-arm,
Ex-ESRTC 1':u:i'u'm:, _
Badge: I~To.5E'?1_.. K3RTC.',.__
E-L."-:::« Neahru Iiagar
Belay, Hgaaan piat;igt;} 'a_ *@;§BfiTITIcNER
gay 33:. H.§-- Egamgééaaéfigx, ADVGCATE}
AND : ""
The niviai$§a1*¢Qfi::e11¢£, "$
NEBamm;»3e1;a:y5._ '.Ww_f ...RESPONDENT
_:aY.$fiI} EAiRfifiULiAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
u'E'hi:*.s_ E'.'f:=_."."i..tt.;"".'LV£?e:a7_:ii:i11 ii: filed under:
3:_:»:,ti.r:1':a'.s_' E25 " 2 ':2:-I§_1:he Canatitzution at
E1: M
-4
4.... 'A +-1..
:. a q":u_..-'5 I..a.u'5 Charge meme
0 'E
- A "'L----dat'ed 115:' 23.9.2002 hearing Na.
_'aEe,Ka;3a,5a.Bavi.sihbandi.Gai Haaf2SO7f@01
de:1:fe:.;;1'% 2*'3_,_j9.E-:D05 passed against the yetitianer
"--.€'.=";n:i~42I':+:--u':.€:e 'G"} in order No. 423/2005; direct
. ...._.'-_.... *.... ...............L.. ....|:.' 1... _ ' ' ' '
-.,;.e.-u.zu.a«.t;:ute:::.u=:u» w. 'cue §-'%'%t.1.'C1Gn%E lnt-.-'; aemlces
._Fr
£1' nu.
kzufiifheu raspun-slant - Corporation.
V' These Warit Petition Corning on for
valiminary Hearing in 'B' Group this day, the
rt '.E|.':E..dIé'a the .1Eeli:.:n;ei%:-
E': F. B E F.
Writ. Petition No.1038EIf20Dfi is directed
against the award dated 05.10.2005 in I.D.A.
Nm.7lfl997. 5§&g£'
--\
pa'. .
an-3-an
2. The petitiazmer alleges
Charge Sheet datad Gigfiérléfié,{ aii@gifig,}anW.V
assault: on tha Aaai.ss't§I1t Ws:_'«'.f3s.
this regard an s-Ifis-. and the
Enquiry Dffi-:':neaAv::r.,4":'~ ;:eport: on
1o;o9.19a3, 1h§;a$#§$&; °gg 716.09.1933 an
-Easier §«". m..:'£:,;:_ fig}; Eaased. 'rha
P'5'*3it3;l«'5!¥§'§4--'+--51".;_:.»» éiiaputa in I.B.fi.
C-ourt held that, the
-sra.:i£1.i_4i§-* and prcsper and also held.
is net proved, accordingly
t:11'm£:e;L;15t:a:ttement with 75% backwagea.
maid award was called in question by
.. fimianangaamant, as wall as by the petitioner
Eeforme this Court in W.P. Na. 3014811999 and
Ii.P. }~Iuc::.ED63'H'19B9. This Court allowed. the
writ: petitigzl filed M the ,a.;na;gement and set
Labour Cnaurt. at para 8 this Court *'h@a§'L:'-Vf'qund
as under :
fir firm: that
:
,de*ec3u. "-1f.I'i:--;-* ast~.a.+.~,.';.:.~...*.s.'
5. I211
enquiry ____;'.~.1:'<:a<:e;e;_¢iVV'.:J."».*.1_r:;_:'a_,» _ _
ss:rui:in.rL.aifi5§fA'-- ch-tent'..§§1£1g;?,Ti::.o;r:ing' to the
srnzan-::.Eus:iz:In ba.s§_a§'1f":E:f2az_t¥'r;5§j~,ii__jtzhe liabour
I'.'."ct:-11.gf*15:l'tZ«"1..i'g.I":::i'Lt;i§..__I';é1t?5; passed the
.
4.,» “”” “113”;1,V§3L!’-.’thfi’t’;~~’flth.5 award is not well
raaeuiriing .V Einft Jfamafld,
afii’m.e..e«1r:itnas3a5s arm. while: considering
‘ –thsa,4V’=&vv.itiss=nce of three witneaaes the Labour:
.”C’.’I:l’l1.1″.’_’C.v’V’.:’:_-!’.iL.:Lz§-‘Slit cmnsiderad the evidence produced
in-‘a:fc_rhé< the Enquiry Ctffiacm: and found that, the
V Eh.-3:'-,;'& i .=.. pi.-r.:~.rad an… cunf i mad the Drier of
puniahxfuant .
5 = Laaggiegl 59431531. for the petitioner
fair and propar, it is for the management to 5
/.
rra/”, 0
m5-.-
provs the charge and it wan nut gpéfi fig tha
managament ta refer ta the evidefice»ph&dfieéd
bafora tha Enquiry 0ffi;et;- HE alé¢tfififimitt€d~t
that, the evidence Qrodfic9& EQtfiétmafiggtfiégt
aid net grave tu§ltchat§%,’;t§0fi§””dt the
witnesses tuxngfixhoatiit fififi otter witneaa was
nut a yarty to tfié ifitfidtfltlfing there was no
ether m§tatialié#t§@t_th§uh@t;rial before the
dctmea submit tad that, the
charga_havIfig-not=ptfiv3d} the Labour Court was
rs» _.
£3
nst_3usL1i aa._ Ha_alsa railed n a judgment
It
¢f tH®.fipaxg¢¢firt3:eported in iii iii? if if
m.§’tm::.~o: Inna llI!’1′.1fil vs. namzmm
Luann. coon an uarnm and
tA éuhmittéfl that, in case the enquiry is held as’
mat; fair and prayer it is opsn to the
“‘5: ‘
man=~%ment to laad evldense. In such
circumstances, the Labour fiourt was hat
justified in relying on the evidence prednced
befora the Enquiry Gffiaan. sggg,
$6:
6. Learnad Counsal appearing “fdfffikthe
Managament wuhmittad that, it is-$bt-fi§@t§p¢m
to tha petitimner to contend that;
Cnurt cannot uanaider thdt@§iflefidaAEfi§$fiéad
H$h;¥F court
1+’
I
I
b%£cr%= thg IEnquizy
earlier procaadipga,”ht§=tcatefifiricaily f6u’d
and directed x£fi§t;gi£h%Fm:§bQur Court to
cwnaidst,~th£ i§§id%n§§3tptb&ttad before tha
Enquirzj? in the light or the
chaervgttfifigfimafigtfiy”thia court. The Labour
cmfigt hag ééfisifiégéfi the evidence prad_ced _y
tha Hanagement before the Labour Court as well
§é5tthg afiidsnce before the damastic enquiry.
Vst fie filfifi auhittad that, the urder paaaad by
tAtthis’t@urt was nat questioned in an appeal at
@£Q:w any other Forum and the said order is
‘.I….+–1-.+- ..
‘1 Hflbu hhfi partiea. Having acceyted;
it is nut opan tn the petitianar to argue tnis
groud. He alga submitted that, the learned
Single Judge cansidering all the aspects found
that. the order of the Labour Court was not
t§hé’@E5Qfitjt
-.n_
, .
K
game .ieaue’ again.
based on any reaeen and the Labefiriffiaurt
should have eeneider the merit.
aside the earlier wh:_=.,1;ier_;
this Court has ebeerve’c1.:thet,a”t1fie”:Leheur Ceurt
eheuld. have Satttieieei*tfie>_material placed
before the_demeetie enquiry before coming ta
1.
H.
(‘4?
fififiéiufiififljafifiithit.ttfifif has
between age §a;;;¢$;%e it is not open to the
against the said order
not itie2efieerte”thie Court to cenaider the
Since the parties have
eeeggted the eid_; and in tetme at the said
exfiei, th” Laheur fleurt h*a exercised its
‘power 59 considering the evidence before the
V”x;LEfiqfiiry Officer as well as evidence produced
-diixing the course ef proceedings before the
Laban: Ceurt. It is net in dispute that, the
Management hag examined tuzee witneeeee
Though one witneee “ae turnefi hostile but he
alae admitted that the incident has happened.
.?. It is net in dispute thet[1tfiieeCautt,eet*
is n
Further, two witnesses have apaien ah$ޤ the
innidant they may not be party to Ehg ififiiafifit
but Ihave stared about ithfi-_infii§éfit4xEhd¢’tfi§;i
evidence of those two fiitfi§§$e&=§i@afiiy{Q$pw i
(ff
-.~a=.1.:; the incident g:g;¢..i1%1;;p:;rgn:e;;’ V-.§sg’-;1é.1″””i1ii:idar1t
fling Efifiéfifi ii ;
U.’
another amlayeé’fii$tufi®i£§iihe,pub1ic peace.
a. hav.-am; feund +;h.=.=~..,. the
chargé id gififiafi 5n the ®éSis af t a 9via=nca.
I #0_fi@fifi#&ifi$&%3 tfigie is any juatificaticn
tn iifiterf%fi%jifiifhfi the award. The only
gontan£i¢g”itfi&ti:waa urged by the learned
gfifigéi far £55 yetitioner is that, the Labour
riv
aura fiught mat ta ua¥e ceneidered the
, F
“evidfififié adduced before ths Enquiry Gfficer.
V”n, I find that, thara is nn justification in the
v°–$aid contantion in viaw 9f the earlier order
paasad by this Court.
9._ ficcardingly, W.P. Na. 10338f2U06 is
diamiaaed. fiince the other writ petition
(W?
ug-
filed is the consequence to the of
punimwaruent aubesaquently passed
petitioner. In view <:s§J ""'t1:«a vf:r;a;f’.”j:L;iV:i:u;»=.=.VV1:vii<2JnVL'v-.&<:-ff
the award, the 19.19. No.af1L3_3'9Df2'OvCIfi.. %g]'s.. "n.ot
%ur'..*i'.*e fa:-r. monaider'-a}{:'i.cn. V. the
awe is also r:§.i.*.a31jeiaa:«w:i'.–."L_:'– V'
, , % S.-3/.:v