IN THE HIGH com? 0F"K}-\R"f>eATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12*" {MAY OF AUGUST, 2009
PRESENT
THE HC}N"BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MA_£'§J'i5§\i;?;Tif};§1'
AND u 'T 3 A
THE HOWBLE MR.}LiS}}'ICE4Rz3"§:'1 MAL:I'M%AmV..:%IvT%i'
WRIT APPEAL I'§O.S64'.0i»':2£309(Lvt§<E.'~§'ra£§-o':i"*- '
K.H.u Road', Ban;3.a¥c!f;é"'«
By itéwchivef 'fraffic nager
, fieggresérstietiby its
yaw Gffigeré APPELLANT
, - ,. 14 V {fi\{"$ri. i?~iv.R. Renuka, Advocate)
%m;:%% ' k
" Qutgaéwamaiah
Sic: "Va radaiah
.. AA '*~._Aged about 39 years,
QR/'o Virupasandra
Akkur Pest, Koctagaé Habié
Ramarzagaram Taiuk
Sangaiare Rurai Existrict. WRESPGNDENT
-2-
This Writ Appeal is filed Li/S 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act praying tie set aside the order passed in the Writ
Petition f~:o.127G3/2007 dated 03/11/2008.
This apeeai coming en for preliminary hearing this
day, Manjunath 3., Delivered the foliowing:- -
JUDGMENT
The concurrent findings ef the i..abeu.if:’_
erder passed by the learned Single. iifiitiits.
Petition ¥\%o.12703]200? datec:!’i’.V3′:’.’.’.Aii’4io\§en§b–éél’,..VV 2;i§30lié;n1i%is it
called in question in this ai>i:i_:ea,_l.
2. The facts leading te..t’i1is”_¢ases._are a’s”i’aere’under:–
The.fesii-oAne,erst:e:.hc was working as conductor was
issueciflaiitny 5 niemo stating that he remained
aliigsent una’utnov;”ise:d¥y from 27-6-1998. Based on the
.A an enquiry was izeid. Subsequently, he was
inniialmlsse service on 31-5-2002. Aggrieved by the
e¥ee’?:’Vef”eismissal the respondent raised a dispute under
it * Visectien :£,O(4-A) of the Inclustriai Disputes Act, in
‘§;AfA5.i’~io.122f2€102 before the Labour Court. The Leeeur
T Court after considering the case of both the parties held
g6 .
that the enquiry was fair and proper and vaiid. Thereafter
the parties were permitted to lead evidence an_d___ after
considering the evidence adduced by both the pa’;’tie~::{‘the
Labeur Court came to the conciusmm that trie-
absentee himseif unauthorisedéy:~en_the_; he
was sufifering from tuberculosis “‘and7’.’_b’ri’i atcovtunt
of the Doctor he was uncie§~..£C:€srr;piete .be4:.iu %et”st’§.;””t*3ased on-‘
the cause shown by the respe–eVd’ent,~..the ‘L’ab0uri.&ourt held
that the Greer of disri*ii’§.f~:.ei”‘isf’}»i{iver§’Vee.harsh and shacks the
censcience evf_the_ Cqtirt;”::Vfr modified the
erdetgof–.pt::iiSVhifn.efi1:»’bfi:irnpesing penalty and has ardered
for reiri’fia”tevrr’ient”witbtontinuity of service without
batfiiktvages andV:vvby’:withthoiding two annuai increments
. with cAuvmuiAa*t;ve effect.
«order of the Labeur mutt was chailenged
befe”i’e__A’1~the learned Singie Image by the appeilaet-
“E’.C_erf.paration. The iearrzeti Judge also came to the
it Rzoncitzsicn that the maeificatéon ef the order of fiismissai is
just anti tamper. However, the Writ Petition was ailawed
<iV/
in-pert hoiding that the respondent was not 'eiititied for
continuity of service' and further or6er{§;;g.'.,_i_:5?or"«this
confirmation of oreer of reinstatement»ti§r~.vxévéthhoiaLii1g.oft
two annuai increments with igumuiatixieb effect;'r"ThisVeorder.A I
is caiied in question in tVh'is4__.appe'a_it'
4. We have ;.heard&V.t:1e:.’i_earnoed httoliiiseieppearing for
the appeiiant. Her””to_rnte’:at§’ori the Labour Court as
wen as Veeriiriiiitted a serious error
in not. sufficient cause, the
i”es,r3on_;iAe.r;’iE unauthorisediy and they
si’i’eAu£ei” with the order at’ punishment.
Ti3erefa_’rte,.Vsiie’ the Court to set aside the order.
‘ Butiareivwe are not in a position to accept the
iiazfiiizfiiietitsvifiadvanceci by the learned counsei for the
A -__appeii’at’ra.t¥iCZorporation for the feiiowing reasons-
“1) Acimittediy Exit!-6 discioses that the respondent
V * is-as suffering from serious pulmonary Tubercuiosis and he
was in the Hospital for a eeriod of one year from
27–6—1998 til! 15-12-2000. A show cause was
issued to the respondent for which he
A charge memo dated 4-1-1999. as per’Ar.riexii’re;A to
Writ Petition has been issuedV”-by ::i’rejiVapp_ei’i’ai1t’CIo~:p’o1r_ation””~. *1
and the explanation oifereqp b3r ‘tn:e .responi3en: fives teat
immediately after A_ciischargu_e’:A’fr_oej_v he made an
attempt to report ?i’irnsei”«f he was not aiiowed
to work. then.=’i:ireI’i:na£ee’ served on him.
téneiiiieerned Singie Judge was
of the Labour Court
-of ciismissai and imposing the
penamf “of i of two increments and denying the
..r.{:i'”.»’a<:i<. waoesrwiivvn relation to that the iearned Single Judge
A consideri~ng the conduct of the respondent in not reporting
nlastiaiso ordered that the respondent is not entitled
forvieontinuity of service. Considering the nature of iilness
V " =»,_thve respondent was snfiering we no not see any ground to
"interfere with the concurrent findings of the Labour Court
and that of the learned Sirzgie Judge. This appeal isw
accomingiy dismissed.
Since we have dismissed the appeafliihere
necessity to condone the deiay of 19 «.
appeaL , z_ . –,_,
rsk ”