High Court Karnataka High Court

F J Sequera vs The Management Of Nwkrtc on 25 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
F J Sequera vs The Management Of Nwkrtc on 25 February, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED was me 25*" DAY OF FEBRugg $*.,::  { ' 

BEFOREZEV

THE HON'BLE MRJU STICE'AK€J_{4A!$i ~sHANTaN5{a§uaA§  f ,

wan' ETITICBN NQ.5d4'14i'2QO§}(L~!{ 5Rf?§j

BETWEEN:  N
F.d.S::quera    ._ ._ .,
Since dec£:;€1sf:€1_"t'i§{V_l§s.F€'34..'     T .

W3' olate' 'F'.»1.'.I.SC:-flql')'lf1'I".¢'.:'t;'V "
Agejd  _»   

10} Miss; M?au~ia'Depté;'  
D / o.Ia'€t:.. Rx] .VSc:.qu}=_:ra  ~~ V
" 'aged 22  V '

"   i*'.:'Ii§§ 

" Di   Sequera

V  1§;gttCi~..}9 ysaas

a'; Miss stcpkmn
I}/"mlate F.J.Sequcra
Aged 19 years

V' ' '  2 g_}u " "Af{13.m. Devi

" D[o.§ate F'.J.S<:que}:a
Aged 13 years



Since miaor z'ep.by natural
Guatflian
Mrsfliagdalin

All are 1"] at.Nilakani House
Nilakani Post
Sixsi Taluk

Uttara Kannada .. I-'ET§'}'§ON'EVR'S f   "' 

(By Sri M.H.Bhat for Sri V.S.Naik,   H ' 
AND: V A'

The Management of NWKR'I'(37 
Uttara Kannada Division  
Sirsi, rep.by its   '  
Sivisional Controller V    *  F\<"'E'SPONU'ENT'

(By Sri Ravi V.Hosamani;'Aciv.;}  

This ixtrii p_e£:it'i<).ne»i,s' 'fi_1e"d__ under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Consiituetion of India; to quash the award dated
28.2.2003 grassed  the?" Industriai Tribunal, Hubli, in
I.§.Ne:u'.2?.4;4/ 2001 the certified copy of which is produced and

 , ' marked as Anne§ture_:~__i5wI,v etc,

'  méée  Vfisllowing: -

'  .V Tpetition coming on for hearing, this day the
O R I) E R

  j3etitioz1er»claimant while working as Ofiice

V' "..jej;%$$i'aj;afi't under respondent, met with an accident on

W

-3-

31.1.1995. He was on duty on that day. Due te”‘=ti1e

accident, he suffered compound fracture of

femur at the middle third and lower min; {resets &

of the 1st metatarsal of the rig’tit

treatment in vrarious hospitals ‘at

around. He did not attend VAfter
assumption to his eiiziizged the
cadre of the management,
h3Vi118 by the
petitioiirem, leave with pay and

817 diays-.pay. 5 Questioning the order of

the mafiagemeiit; 817 days as leave Without

V. pggfig, ti:-.e;v tiis;)1;teA.was raised by the petitiorxer.

‘ the reference was made by the State

its the Industrial’ Tribunal, Hubii, for

adjudiieation of the dispute with respect to treating of

‘ ff days as leave Without pay. The Industrial Tribunal

Viéaftez’ hearing the parties, rejecteé the reference by

f’\
f’ :

\.—-/

,4.

holding that the elaimant–pet:itioner is not erztzitled. to

any relief.

2. Sr: M.H.Bhat, leamedgadvecatg on u

behalf of the petitioner by reIyin’g__1i;)_en tlieA.§l0cunu§ents._VV

at Annexures«-E, F’ and contends tshosell

documents clearly em Vtietitionef was taking
treament from V 1 1.2. therefore the
petitioner is [entitled be the period

of medical duty.

3, ‘ ” of settlement dated

18.3.197%.V%e21te’red’._Vir;te between the management of

‘ _ re$i:ontlent~Cefpt>r.ation and the Employees’ Federation,

(C1ause–24 of the settlement) that the

‘ _ei’Vleebeence of the employees injured on account

of acetdent while on duty will be Heated as on duty

the period of meciieal treatment duly eerfified by

” _ the Authorized Medical Qfficer. ‘}’hus, it is eiear that if

‘x?

-5-

any partictxlar empioyee has suffered accident, doe to

which, if he remains absent, the period gr~rj:1;;%;e§ca1

treatment shall be treated as if he is on

the medical treatment should duly 2

Authorized Medicai Off1cer., _But4’the.._e1aterie1’on

does not {oily support the toe” he

was taking treatmefit. to A ‘1H.dE5.’C2V4(}0(). sAs
aforementioned, relies upon
three F and G,
dated .4. 2000 , respectively
in medical certificate at
Anne)tt1£x’e¥Gv helpful to the petitioner,

1351-‘=’s%{S’1’i:z11oh the certificate reveals that the petitioner

.A Ewes to do light Work. More over, the petitioner

1.5.2000. The two other certificates

Efititj “exures~E and F reveal that the petitioner has

2 ~. Ad treatment from Dr.Prem Kotian, Associate

firofeseor, Department of Orthopedics, Kasturha Medical

2/X’

_ 7 _
respondent shall pay the petitioner, the salary for three
months from Februazy 1999. The order of the

Izfidustrial Tribunal in respect of the rest of the is

justified under the facts and circumstances j(}’i”

Since the petitioner is already dead; . ., 9»

representatives i.e., petitioners (a):_-to 31 ;_t;o

monetary benefits accruing ozit of ordef.

Writ petition is of’