High Court Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metropolitan … vs Mohammed Iliyas S/O Shamik Usman on 5 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan … vs Mohammed Iliyas S/O Shamik Usman on 5 August, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
(By Sn' '1"    "  

 } T:;bmm;' Bzmgéiorc 9. ;= '

' '  iV"Vf0I$5'w§ng:

L nfrxibmxal, B-angaioré: in m 229z2o¢_:42 on 5.4.2095.

as THE men COURT 0:? KARNATAKA AT BAN(;;a.L{):;i§j  ;_. A' 

Dated this the 5"' day of August,  V 

Before _ V { A
mggozmzzg MR J£'1ST}'C£ HU.l;Ef¥~i#i!)I Gfgafilis   %
Writ Perenon" 192z{";<%2aa5. (£,_K; "_: 'V 
Bangalore Metropnlitan Traz:s';:913f" ~--._ _' ~  . " ' ~ % _

Central ofiices, Kfifiaad, Shant§ii1_zagar._    
Byits  .   _  -  ' Petitianer

(By Sri L   - 1;   

And. . . ' . .. ' _ . _ .
Mehammed Hiyas    ._ - '
:3 59, 2"' Cross, Pvlagadi Rc3r.i  "  

Bmngakoe 560  ,   ,_   Raspondent

»  wri;  is filed under Ar£.226x'227 of the cronmmrion

p:€i§'i;1gV$9€1§13i$3:.._fii'n' amea dated 5.4.2905 in ID :z29;2oo2 by the Imiustrial

 i?.?§i€..P;éi3tioa coming on for hearing this day: the Court made the
ORDER

u ‘Petitiorm is by the xmnagcmmt emailing the award of the Indnwtrial

Far the aliaged misconduct of causing a fatai accident,

hcid and the disciplinary authority having fa:-331:1 the work1naxz.A’éuil’2f’g ‘

imposed the puxxishment of withholding three inpmmegts

efiect with effect from 1.1.2801 against which, fli€:’;’WG1fkl1}£;$l 1; ‘«

bcfere the Industria} Tribunal, Bangalore. In’bu§a:..5iic: mqgay; ‘<:sgi§re;:l V

for withholding three annual increments wéfl1£ifii_fiumu1ati§e Hence,

this petition by the agga*ieve&~managainé¥x$V.:V'& V . _ . '

It is seen vehicles. Argument of
the counsel -:9 the cfiect that the snooicrist cam
from the wrong However, as a matter of fact
fmfiingo is tyfuihi; Iff;c sketch of the scene of the accident
was the wrong side, and whiie he was turning

{;3_ir§?le~,-V space. But, wiflzout ppoperiy negotiating, he

T' i"""t4e;:v-.~.r:»;=:;1 13:5 tagégrés right. Tribunal has mt-ticed ma: mm was enough

.. . ..fgp'aQV€"'11p ter 28 Ztozrwards the icii side (if the scrwtcr. It has aiso observed

Sefifitcfist should have allowed the bus which is a heavy vehicle to

h fizist and accordingly, held that there is cent:-ibutory nagligcnce.

30 held? it has erdered $9 witrhholci 0212;' three increments which

fiappears in be a too lenicnt view.

W’

in View 0f the: fact that them is contributory ncgligence, in
modification of the award of fire: Tribunal, it is ordered flue management aha}!

wiflahoid two éncreménm with cmnulative ¢fl2=.:<;t. Petition is allnwed T ~