LA 1:259. BY«.I'F$ ¢3QMPANY SECRETARY. wp 19945.07 IN W.P.NO. }4352[2,007 BETWEEN: SHRI GANAFATHI, s/0 HANUMANT}-IAF'?A BARAK1 AGE 47, occ: NIL, . _ ' R/O HULKUND TALUK, RAMDU Res; DISTRICT BELGAUM. «-- ._ . PETITIQNER (BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI,AD.'V.} AND: 1. THE STATE OF'«KARNATAE_'ZA.,~" REPRESENTED §3Y.ITS 'SECRETARY , 1RRz<3AT1(;:'N F_}EP'§'.',3'..}d.S-,§;3IJi'LDIN(}, BANGALRQE.-i... ' .. 2. THE:;t$'é"s :s*:*.é'§rr R}g;é;c."*P1irE Er:C§iREER, MLBCC SUBfDiViI$C§ ' RAMDURG, DIST§'B'£'».LGA&UM...--* 3. KARNATAKR N9:ERA\éARi~.:§i1GAM LTD, REGD Fopmc-RA, 4m R:,ooR, COFFEE BOARD, D»R1,AEMEDKARVEEEIHI, BANG;§L.R®E -1 _ .. RESPONDENTS
(BYSE11R;’I{L”_~HA’§iT’i;”I-ECG? FOR R 1.
SRH§.M.1’~1A£€S£, ADV. FOR R2 AND 3;
THi’s.,w’Rn* PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
~ OF’ ‘1″H_E COl*w¥S’I’I’I’U’i*iON OF’ INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
A V{.MPEi{§NED AWARD DATES 5.3.07 PASSED 9? THE ADDITIONAL
4. “LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN REF. NOJ99/93 {OLD No.33/91; A
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THXS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
wp 19945.07
3. Mr. N.M.Hansi, leaned counsel
the petitioner submits that the ‘A ” 2
justificd in awarding compensai%ion::-
the workman had not workod..__oofifi11oo:xslyfogj }’
of 240 days. . ” * ”
4. Mr. S._B. Hobhéilii, appearing
for the material on
record to Villdced, had Worked
for a coniinuously in a calendar
year. ho been reinstated. He also
subxgfifsv that has also filed Writ Petition
Na; %
u Ev¢n though W.P.No. 14352/200? is hot
_ ._§:ho”‘records are summoned and by this common
.’_’c;_rri«..:14’ the writ petitions are disposed of.
wp 10945.07
: 5 :
6. I have perused the impugned award’.
by the labour Court.
‘7. It is to be noticed
adduced coupled with the eenagnce
clearly establish that the had._ ‘more ‘V
than 240 days in a. date of
termination. Indeed, by the labour
“as . : ” ‘=i:~’~..– without statutory
notice’;-_ ‘i’f1e’ declined to reinstate the
wor1;1nan”~!) ut to award compensation of
‘~ _ Inn is to be noticed that the employee
compensated. Indeed having rmard
exercised by the Iabour Court, I am of
the that the question of reinstatement after lapse” of
“ii at this point of time would be putting the clock
‘ ” “Back which is impermissible. fl
/’
J
1\*p’:¥fi’:.’4.1S.07
8. Hence, I am of
impugled award of g’ant1’n;;;g”
declining to reinstate does
9. Insofar as’ filed by the
workman is: K V” that the
compensatiofi’_«4._a;é%.ra§:gjd6c1Vj[-«..,iEs~~. in lieu of his
reinstatement.” . ‘ N
to. and situation, the
enhanced to Rs.-40,000/-.
order is passed:
filed by the employer stands
&V’sfi1i§:é$ed’ and that of employee/Workman is allowed in
I UDGE