High Court Karnataka High Court

Gurappa S/O Kanakappa Ronad vs The Divisional Controller on 6 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Gurappa S/O Kanakappa Ronad vs The Divisional Controller on 6 January, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar
IN THE HEGI-I COURT OF' KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCI-Is."-".__'l'
DI-IARWAD.  

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY 01? JANUARY 20_1;_0'*   T"  
IZRESENT _  p
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  "
AND        

THE HONBLE3 MR. JUsT1CE:s».}§lRAV1Nr3~Ktirté-Aléii H

Writ Appeal'No.    

Between:

Gurappa :     
S / 0. Kanakappa l?{jt5nam:l,'« 

Age. 4'7Yea=1~s,    "
Occ. Nil,   if

R/0. Jai<:ka1--i,_"j;p

'I'q.Roi1, _ 

Dist. Gadag. '

.. Appellant

(By Sri;  Nagmfajappa; Ativocate)

' ~..Th.e-Di;r.§si<)nal'Cnntr01ler,
N~.W';-K.R.T.--C;. 1
Gadag D.§'vrisi§9-xi,
-- Gaciag.  '
 " .. Respondent

  iztrrit appeal is filed 11/ S. 4 of Karnataka High Court Act,

 . 'V:pr';aying? to set aside the order dtd. 1'7/03/2006 passed by the
 V  1earne'd'Single Judge in WP. No. 46872/O2(L.K.} and upheld the

x," ,7
if



award passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in KID No. 6/ 1999 Dtd.
16/ 01/ 2002 and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate
the appellant into service with continuity of service, along with full
back wages from the date of order of removal till reinstatement
along with all other consequential benefits. 7 

This appeal coming on for preliminary hearing~~--.this__i

Manjunath, J ., delivered the following: «

JUDGMENT

There is a delay of 970 days in filin:g.th’:3’_iiai’;13ea1_. ‘T

2. We have heard the counsel’f_o1v._the a’ppellant.j

3. Perused the application filed—to:.cond.one th’edAelAa’iy in filing

the appeal. The writ petition /O3/2006. He

has filed of certified copy six months after
the judgmentiihas the learned Single Judge. He
has appliedfor on 09/2006 and has obtained the
tl’1§.”$arf;ep’day.i”The appeal is filed on 30/01/2009. The

very-fact. is}a delay in filing the application for grant of

certified ~.copyV.won.ld show the interest evinced by the appellant to

“.’«l..i:§.}rOJSBCut€ tiie? appeal. The grounds urged by the appellant to

1′-.i.xc’ondo1’2.e’ the delay are unemployment and poverty. The same

be considered as a ground to condone the delay, as the