E
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT
nxmn mm mm 913 am or my zoos ~_’ k
BEFORE
THE Homsm uamsncs 1_1.a,.;zAmmsH_11[ « V
BE’!’WEEH:
MMADAPPA
s/0 SR1 MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS _ _ _
R/AT NO.*¥9, MADHU N1LAYA”‘ ‘-
sm CROSS, K.R.:.AYou*r — V 5
JRNAGAR em PHASE. * 1 a
BANGALORE- 550,073 . ‘~-_..1%’3TI’rIO’£(ER
(BY MS. Jy;;N;cH}égm,2A Rcéhé :3.1e:”‘iz.’2§;14A;K,
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT’ or
BANGALGRE ME’rRoPomANTz2ANsPoI?r
CORPORATION ”
CEN’I’RA£;.’GFfFICES”» J’ ‘ ‘
V..-‘K.’H.RQ2&§) _ …..
AVSHANFHINAEEXRM’
BANQAI,OR.E +.%sa9’~-e27 ‘ ..nns1-oxnmrr
._ ‘(BYLiSf”‘is!.,V§;IAirA1AxsHM1 FOR $121 L.GOV’INDRAJ,
A Aox:o<_§xrEs.)
TEHS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 5i
ore' THE 'CONS'I'I'i'U'I'ION op' mma PRAYING TO QUASH
"ram AWARD PASSED BY THE mes'? ADDL. uaoua courzr,
'BANGA,LORE, m REF.NO.27/1998 171'. 27.3.2004 was
A1sIN1~:x.L; BY wmcn TI-IE LABOUR COURT HAS REJECTED
—-THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER AND ALSO HAS COMMITTED
V _ SEVERAL ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENI’ ON THE FACE OF’
RECORD AND THE SAME ARE OPPOSED TO THE
“SCHEME OF THE 1.1). ACT 1947 AND ETC…
!L.E.m.1
THIS PETWION COIVHNG ON FOR HEARING ‘§”HIS f)fiY,
THE CGURI’ MADE THE FGLLOWING:
ORQEE
This writ petitiun by a cenducmr u
establishment of the :;_ A’
Metropolitan Transport V
the award dated 27.03.2004 « by
the First Additional Lt in
Ref.N-3.27/98. fhc Labour
COUJT 1335 by the
Govexilmentv of the Industrial
Disputeeigot,’ ‘ ‘
2. {have counsel appearing for
‘ t’he and the impugned award at
reference related to the two orders
dated…’:_V26V,.0f¥. i.9i39 and 23.12.1991 passed by the
xeepondexatimmmgement imposing certain mm’ or
A ‘}$fl§}iSh;!:?fl.CntS on the petitzionerworkzman relating to the
Eckzaxiges levelled aga1n’ st him at Azmexures A & C. The
\\
fl
articles of charge dated 01.06. 1989 (A1mexure~»A)
as follows:
*1. flzat on 3.5.39, you had failed to
tickets of Ra}-00 to .
zraueamg from Avalahallt :10
2. You had failed to zssue wife. 1-ea
denomznatto’ ‘n to .¢ travelling
from Atialahallt failed to
The articles -Of’ 1990 (Annexurc~C)
read as ”
‘{1} inzat’ %%4–9~%90;k% fazed to issue three
‘ n to three
‘ :’.e., from stage No. 4/ 3 to 3,
. the requzsite fare fiom the
at the place ofboarding itself.’
Silk Farm to M.M.Industn’es, :’.e., from
A sta.ge No.4/3 to 3 cmdfafled to correct the
requisite fare from the passenger.
xexy
:,.jer1the that the dispute was not
i foflowifig _ ‘rag of the Labour Court in the
L ‘ofthe authority letter of the union given to the
@
(3) You refizsed to acknowledge the charge
prepared by the checking inspectors ;._._L: _
misbehaved with them by shouting as ‘ T’ T
u- mm 630%.; seéeam ‘t%:,%._2a:€_z§tf «:’?.~:*v§,{‘eg
,f,;;SJ\r 3%: ém1§g«.55,5X$*r3f5x5;:,g”=*i¥+?’e§?’f?§%S–§i’*’7??*”*’~.
Z3550″ mm oimfmr 3r¥63J5s5″¢§3<5 e¥§;i*'3*'-'=«'J"
and threw the cash bag ticket baakfiv-Virtte'*"
thejeep stating " finfit W551 1% we
ae.-5 mes; mm gags
absoondedfi*e::g__tftefs1§bi.:f e
In my opi11ior1;'Vtf;'.e had taken
a lenient 'V imposed minor
penalties; rejected the reference
both oI;.1_:he '.efAix1erd1" hate delay and on merits
It is relevant to refer to the
m absence of the
fesotutian passed by the union and in absence
Generalsecretcwyandnwresoinabsenceof
. evidence given by MW],
"cz§i¢«oogi;2i";é:ee.§d that reasonable opportunity was
V to him. Therefore, this dispute has to
h even on merits. . . . . . . .'
E
specific pleading that the union had passed a
resolution to espouse the cause of the workrnctn =_4
and to authorise the General secretcay €99??? »
fight the cause on behalf of the
cannot be believed um ea
efieetiue espouse: ofthe cause ewe a o e
As such. the referenee deserves to
at the threshold on this
same is not an
elaborqi§3£y._"v was
imposed V order dated
23-1a2–9W1'._A_*he has relied on
of
WW1, which order dated
2]}-{G998 have been brought out.
first party before the orders under-
349/
&
3. E-Iaving%Itl to the facts of the case; I
legal infirnfty in the impugned award so as to f _
interference unda’ the % A
this Court under Arficles 226:}
Constitution of India,