:9: ma HIGH C()UR’I’ oar KARNA’l’A.KA A:1f»
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24″‘ DAY OF JULY ijf f
BEFORE.
THE H()N’BLE MR.JUS’I’iC’E
WRH’ fi;’i’IT§()N Ne¢f1L22u9 ma’
g;’;1*w2::r;:\:; %
Bangainre Metropolitan
Transport C<3rp<}if9;ti_on, 1 I
Central()fiEce_S,
Shanthinaggat " " .
Bangalore-Sf;0C!2’7, ,_ «_
By’ its Managing mmctazf,
New xiepresenig-id bylits –
Chi¢it’Law ()’f?ic;a:c}f-~ % = ‘ ‘ ..PE’I’ITI()NF§R
(By S’ri.I.;C?r:)vivnciVVr’::_§,4V
V’ _ A 2 ….. .. 9
. sfa.VGaf1g5a;}pa.V,_’ ‘ ‘ ”
Aged a§:mut*–35 years,
g Rz’a”t 9S3i’1 f1″ Crass,
la Maipg K.S.Lay0ut,
.. f V. A ‘¥”e3’hwantapura_
‘ Batzgalare-560022. ‘ ..RESPONI)EN’I’
VA ‘V V. Sri.i(.Srinivasa, Mfg. STM Assmiatas, Adv, far Cs”R)
¥(,_;/
This Writ Petition is fiicd under Articlas 226 and 227 of
the Consfiiution sf India praying to quash the award c1t.3_,l 1.08
made in incinstriai Dispute No.35i’06 by the Pr}. Labou:’i C:;tia”£,
Bangalore vide Ann-K. -f -. _
This; Writ Petition coming on fbr pmlifi’:éfi§fy.. :!ié§firing v.
‘B’ Greup this day, the Court made ?.’he~ fi>’i1o_w£ng;:« _ V :
oR9ERg
This petititm is by the 5.is§aé.3i3ag §the award
pasm: by the Prl. f..a1a§:i§5.’C{1:2:§E;jB§§;r§;;33i§}raVin I.{).Nn.35z'()6
dated 3.1 1.03, Q
T113′ dismissed {mm service alleging
causfing “fa taE aficifixtfitékiier holding enquiry. As against the
he dispute before thc} habour Court- Tbs
enquiry has ordered for reinstatement to his
£i1*igina§~ Qvith cczntinuity of service and other mnsvequcntiai
_ hene.f3’t§A:’wifh 50% ofback wages, bu: ordered is withhold three
‘ éticréments with cumulative effect. Hence? this pctitinn by the
‘ *’ jib/ianagemerit.
Xv./’
3. Heard.
4. The reasening given by the iabour
accident has occurred due to: the c0ntfibut0ty__tfi::glig§n¢’c and
also that there is no evidence agaitfét
regarding witnessing of the accident Vanvdfhat
was examined befere the enquir§}i§g;da:11:hm’ft’y ‘fmt fhe person
who has witnessed thed:i.’:;:»”2d<f:t1;stL éeqmfdingly, accepting the
contention of th¢'n{orkmfifl'»£~_égsV0ffih_ddg:men;£”dt:–$2——ta3 the accidental death that has occurxcd
fi’sc:yn’:gligcnce ofthc workman- However, when the
Has come to the cgmciusion that the workman is
not s§<':I§§d§y responsible for the accident and that there a
finnidibutary negligence, the punishment imposed to withhold
" increments with cumulative cfihct wnuid be pmportimzate,
but ordering fbr pa)/"E'£}6F£f 0%' back wages is not proper having
4
regard to 636 cotttfibutioa1 ofthe workman in the happening of
the accident.
5. In the regain petition is aflowed
maintaining the remaining part of the award
it is ordered that the wnrkman is ixiot
wages, as ordered.
Bkp’