wmvsoao–wmwrw efinsvawvt in
mwgma Wu mmmawmmmmm amwm wwwww mew” mmmmmammm wawm mmgm MW flmwmmmfl Wmiw a;mmwm= mmmmm iriififl fie
IN’1’£E mm-z cotm-r oz ma:-mrnxa,
nxrzn ’11-12:5 ‘mm 08″ new 02’ APRIL ” ‘
amznm V H
TEE HON*33:,3 rm. JuswIc;¢%rrrx. w:=LD1 G 1 ”
wan’ PETITIGN no.199:.é}’2oo5;I;+i:*1:@.§.= ‘V
:
s N xurmnaawmr
510 A % _
:11 ms. R.-‘0 :33,’, 1:: erg-259%
mnmmzx pzmrag A
(By 1
ANEI:
G ‘R. €EHmHmgnmé§i§mxs (9; arm
saaIm*3mm.%mAn%
. “’13-zgs 33.9. FILED Bums. zmxcws 225 mm
% ‘.51? comrrwuxm or mm». mum TC}
V Amkn DT. 3o.6.2c>o4 ow T!-IE mzsxnxm
xx Amn. I.AR)IIR cotmr Am: same mu
2,>g,:’
:-IUM.t.¢MIfi0ou
‘e~0w::ww”vm\voyI”‘vs1 vemluwagrmriis mumaruwwfi: wwé mmmmwmmzw-m WWQWHW MVMIH K3?
2:3.a.2oo2 on aim nozmsrxc n:1~:QU1Ie,::__””.’V§;ir;a$’A« 3
m2¢Ex.A.. man 3. nxspscmrwzr mm 3’1-c.-j’–
mxs mp. comm; an zo§%:4m,a:éLiiiE~_””rriIs’v3:;.:a;j:;;_%’
ma: COURT mans TI-I3
The pati tigner 1 , ” kaauance cezf
wxit of award passed
by the heart, Bangalmze
in I 30-*G6-2004 and the
order: tbs Domestic Enquiry
vidau’4;j.¢§LxL-2uxI.zV.re§_f?-?; .-gnci n and t hold that the
é §nti j:a i””‘L:’i. :::fi:.t::i,§e:1:;’Lo1: of diaeiplinary proceeding
Ai’i:!. in view: cf absence of specific:
2 fuxther to modify the award
‘ ‘ H ‘T 1 4.” ‘ = the zc:-espondent -flanagwzvent to
4’_’_AA..’_§éta,_3;1x=”;;é:’é:e:ta the petitioner with cantinuity of
_ “am§.’vi<:e with full back wages and other
" ' " Vcanaequantial relinfa: .
\)(E_;J'
swmmi n
mwuwu wk 6h\l'°fll'kIWO"%&W'1¥\J°'I WKWW ~a..e..¢w§arw WV vmmmwmfimmm wwwm mwwmfi MW" WM%¥%M%fi%WM WEWW mwwmfi WW WMMNMEMWM WEWW mwmam WW RMWNMEMWM WQWW km'?
2. Hyard the learned counsel W £§xjf tfia f’
respective parties.
3. The patiticnar ‘fifi%i*.wo;1i#g :£fi k”£hn
Iuspondant –C ohm rm, t ” . ‘ Rgfiii’e:§§;aphor
and he was paid aal%iy §i;fiu;2;5§§i- p.m. and
his ssrviaqg 10-3-1988 .
Thtcughoufi fi§=§i§ fifigfiinfi ifi the night shift.
alleging ufigfififiégiéag fififiéhéa for the pariad
fram J#nu&£y §§ §@1f i§§1; a show cause notice
was ia§ue§vahd_k§7$a§ dismissed tram aervi¢e.
. _gpwfi§%:; by ia§uing a letter of warrant, atder
VF§f §i3$£§fi&§ was recalled and subsequently he
nah ieiaafigtfid and thareafter, an enquiry was
“,, held a@&.he was dismissed tram service. The
‘ ‘§ai§”prdar of dismissal was ahallanged by thm
Vx= fip§%itionax bafere the Labour Couxt. whidh was
frajacted by the Lahqux Court.
W
“” “””-;.””..’f”” W WMWWWHW WWW Wan mmmWm”””‘%4-va lruzuvm mwawm wr wmwmmauw flew” uwwm Wm” lwwmmmma mam; M.
4. It: is the amgument at the learned
ftaz: the peetitionex that the charggy ‘
against him are vague. It ‘;iA»§'”‘i:§,:1§~._
that when once the c}1a».1:fg*aa: v1.§1rxel1«II.§c.«’§’.A §qai;1′{§i: ‘
him tor unautharised absagfizs a.z’e. _ slay
the Hanagarasant ~..1;ha haa:§””a:;i§::e1,-utod
that he will be ragga; duties,
there is this 155119.
1%.ccrdi12gJ:1jr’V Labour: Court
did n:;*u’i:”‘”‘ the material
evidencger Elie Iianagernent, which
has {::_–6-1998 and
ujfthe quaaticsn of nainstataznarnt would not arise.
For the various chazgea }.ev$3.1e<i againat him.
9%.:/'
the petitioner had been dxmnissag
araz:v;i.¢e. of which the Labour Court M
rajmzted the reference .
6. The main xjis
that throughaut my gaaékiing-»%%.;n’fiightv%:§ shift:
as Radiographer. it has
affected “‘駥ra vaxiaus
hatazda in”‘i;§;gh¢’ gran wanking in
tha- a lenient View
would ” the Hmagemant and
aim chazgos are levelled
7.” Cf V¢:. uummwaw wwwna Wm wmnmminnn ruun Luunl ur awwammemma NEW?! LUUQH U?” %fi.¥{NIK’i’flKl\ ?’IECi#i’¥ CC
appreciating the material avidsmza on
has passed the award, which is erronaoyza
B. In the ci::c11mutance$,V .
crdaxing for reimtatamnfi ;’
Accordingly, the petitgon ‘..i’s: _:6;iia§aedt,é”whgiila
setting aside the Labour:
ccxurt. The an duty
from the date!’ the data of
closure 8–3.–1993 tan:
1a–s~199a £¢2_t£§’§u£p§§$ gt manntary bensfita
with ‘fiéarvica and he is use
fig:z:V 5Vt}%,..__.,.h.ack wages aleng with clmsuxze
¢mmmm
Sd/~
Fudge