Karnataka State Road Transport … vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 6 January, 2009

kj . m in ezzxtitle far Ra.SS,3;EL’fif–.

– —-m — -mm-um mun -..uu-5:. gr Mmnmm muzrs uuufl or mmmmcn HIGH count or KARNAVAKA ms:-I COURT or ICARNATAKA mm-I couxr

Homfiammsm,
mssm: EISTRIQT. REsm:¢:I:§2f§:1fs

{BY BR}. M C PYATE, A}3V3CA§’§.? FGR R3]

This we petitimfzz sg am mm” mm? mamggg

of tlm Comfimtiszrn sf Endia prayizug ~a;§u9.sh éSrr;ii”::*;$€

fiated 29.53008 Viéfi Amzsxura» E by R1 ;a;t¢:<:§"tI:'1a 'errt19:':i"'=,
dateri '?.6.2OG8 pasewd fiy viéev. '

Axzmure– Fpaasetibyfiie

This getiziou ccrmifig w;f.:£r%%% p:amm* ' this
day, the C-Burt Imde §

This erdw: pafisad by
the 1* Authzarzity ulfier the

€:;~.;f_' iih:;= Act The rwpandezut

– patidmn h&z*se ‘Rm 2″

tlriat, 3% was appsszimcad an

.§}i§.=.’=;’j’a11d*:x::t::m and w warlfi till 3i.3.1’9%

$5., fair 3. afiii years and m is atfiiflaeci far paymsnt.
‘ H Ear the erzmvs” gm” &. I»-Iawevw the Caxwmfinn

settled tha antifire claim far 31 yams and aikgacs.

. 9
CL

I Luvs’: OF KAEENATAKA HEGH Cfllfixm’ Kfi;RMATAI(& HEGE-I COURT OF KAVARNATAKA HiGH COfiR1′ OF’ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C032″

2. ‘Km said 913% petiiziaan was cappeasmi

Carperafin, irfier aiia 313% that C t
enly for a pm-ma czf 28 gmars 5

fifld absmzt far a perisczd a3f§ ;

aflsegw that tm anti:-c csiaim mi’ g_;*sat1ii£§f’f:aa %,

3. 1: £3 we mntgmiad t§’;ati%i’_i_:;¢” “pe:;::a§n :23 am
afber 9 % fitam arzci no
applimtian fear I fiafi.

4.   am mmiiarafian of
matmza"    ':1: has mt praducafi any

whaiac? mfitfie for téw interat and

F _ ggafigg rejecteé «am claim lmfitimm against
claimant filefi an apwi before tm

fiw appelkte autlrzmrity aihwezi the

V Ԥ.;imct.ed the Cmermratfian ts: pay that: difiwant

« 5? R336? 238;’-V with intermt.

5. Leamafi; wszrnsci ap fur thc Cerwrafmn

“‘ aubmit3 that; there is rm a&c§itiaxm.i mm 1 prodtzced

,-‘;3>«~

befazre the apmllam autharritgn The csmtrefing
based an the saw matariai had rejrmfgd the ”
by cabscrving that an ciaaumarxm am
that the claimazzzzt has mrzm for 31 «Tm
atzrf the material {has agzspelkta ‘£13 a*.:%i’1
that the claimnt is enéfied for 6%; an
tins yound fJ:1a’€ ‘(ha §£sr§i11u=n11s
servizzae cxf 31 ymm f:1_1.;.r .’ V ‘V

5. fm petiticxnar 1’~.mher
Yfiam in filiffi tha
claim. £917 mzficnatian csf delay

Immafi fiiziiffifil ayfirizag fer the

auhm§$ted that wnriwari hafi

‘ fo§.9.3i’érear$ and tlflfifi is m ‘amak: in mam’ . Even

‘ ‘[i$_sn;1aa.’s.se it WEB mt afimi tiw af aerfvzce.

Efiflumaiaiifififi €136 apgmiiaata authm-it}; has

t& ardwfi Aém’ § the ciaim $ii’5mz1 is fihd

I uuum vr mmvemnunnm nawn Luuififi 14:? IKAKNAEAESA HIGH COURT 0!’ XARNKIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA H56?! COURT OF KARNATAIQQ HEGH CQUR1

after 9 wars. The ajgpsiiata autharity has mbéerssafi that

COHR? O? KAQNATAKA I-HGH COi.f3′!'”‘f.3f_{F KKRNATAKA HIGK COURT OF KARNATAKA W554 COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

flfiwt has rm? pwfiusfifi ‘aha zelfit tr:

aatahfish that he kfi waykefl far 31
cirzmmtamas if Elm mamrfml was mt _

appellate autimrityg the appelkte

gis.-an firlding mrimau: rm-e my f ” T

8. In the ra-

coxmideratiun. Amarcim ‘£393 is allawed.
*9, The autherity as
wefi as the fias.PG.§I’SR-

:29/2005-<37 eigxd % 4¢;a@J5;$5 di;aie§ 293.20% and

=" ' 'm, n:a'tteA3:;'V'%""'Vremitne& back £0: aux;

is than mspcatfiant — wmkman
site an "aw mrfiarfmtinn of delay ma aim to

Sd/~