High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Tata Tea Ltd vs Sri S Chowdappa on 26 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Tata Tea Ltd vs Sri S Chowdappa on 26 September, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Shantanagoudar


IN THE Him coum OF KARNATAKA AT BA§§J€§}fi££;%:§¥§E;_::::_ _

mm-‘.–::: THIS THE 25*” 8AY Of >$E?T_E3’é’t’B;.’§I”ResEmi ~ j «
THE HGMBLE Ma.P.a.a:a~»2gLaA2AN, Ci.-iIEVFv_Ji;;.¥;S’f’3:C'{E
Am-i%f & %
mg Hos-.rBLE m.3usT£CE5a:2s¢+A:xzs§§,é:~s:TANAeouaA2
%xa§zi§;::’rj%a:>2;;;,5_t_:a3b.iMaé22;:ee% -RES

BETWE1?eR’:v ; V »

M;s.’f;:aa_*§’e,a,:;–é::;j;-.. ” % %

M.E’.:.S. Rnaii ‘ ‘ ”

Yf:shaw?a:ii}:)pu1* V _ .. ,
Ba:1ga1ere~56f}_02;2.;– ti Appellant

V’ . S:33t,i{.A.Sub§;xé3″E§’£?éi:1thi and
. ‘ v.S1:i Moljlém Kumar for M] s.}mashekaraiah, Aévccats )

u
N!
If

Writ Appeal fileai umier Seaction 4 9f thfi Ka1n2£i.:5;k*a.’E~.iuigh
Court 3391:, 1961, praying to set aside the order i;’1,:__ the
Wfit Pfitition N0.404312/12003 dated ‘2’?.7.i2OG’?. * .. ~ 1

This Writ Appeal csming up pi}; ‘ .

this day, the Court cielivercd the fo110wing:<

Jana E§$'

{fielivared by M91131:

The u11s’ucc:€ssfu.1 f7€}§£$£_’.fi}¢d aggtptsai
against the <.j«1'§r..=';:;1Vf;j' –da3;ed§ .. §8.SSEid by the
i’§’i;gi’s.’w:jj’.,;I%2;;;.i:§g;;% 23%; Pgfiagn N0.4G432/2003.

2. fiiétlose that the respendem: jaineci

. _1:hé:f (if fize…a;::p6}ia11t–IvEa31age:BeI1t as 3 machma

€:¥1§L(53i’c’EtO3’§Li11: i;1′:1rt§’paflkiflg departznerit during thé: year 19′? 1.

Gig fiiié that the rsspomiezit was mxaufimriseiiiy

.ai:)s€I1L~ 01′: fear Gccagions for more than 21}; flags, he was

‘*#iii$n§i=:_as€ci {mm S€I’Vi{:€S. 3113 respondemt app1*0a{::3{1s:-:61 the

Afifsisiant Labour Csnzznissirsmer. The appeflani: also flied

‘4 his statemexit. {£33911 faiiure sf conciiiatien, thcit nzatier

was referreé {.0 Labour C9111’: fer a

LI»?

Laban}: Court after hearing bath the parties, jibe

award datad 19*’? Sepiembar 2032,

respendent was granted €116 reliefqf ;’ei11st?a;t€::ii§f1é§%.vJii}1<:ut' .L

bad-zwages. If; is 3330 éiirficted 1:1"is::mi_fi*: ..tha'i:._011_é' i~:9iC:fi'~:31ii1%t~:_:1t

cf the E'@S§}€3*i'i{1€f3.f, $351331 be 's2:TVi;i:':*33j¢<s-,1<i".A'v.'1V":'1;é:; §31eréi;1 '

Challenged the axagfard Pfiiififill
N<3.4Q48iZ/ 2808. Thé aftétr hraaitilig
{ha parties, di$:fi§?$Sed"if::'€: the hnfiugned
artier. mazaagement.

gfcsizaezlded that the respenflerit

was abs€ 1:1€«. fI*(n3ii’__ far 211 days, 1:116 53.1116 was

‘~ by Oaurt an caiisiéeratign of the

:12:»:ieria1.4:é§§’r:,éc{:rd. The Labom” Ciaurt, an appreciation {sf

th«:3’fi35a€€riz§$’j_:ri3 fiicfifd in prepay perspective and based 03:1

_fact.:~; hr3 S’;.cenc.§ui?;'”‘$?1¥.1ti€:s umautherisfidly from 3132. 1998 ti} 26. 12.1998

i.€§., far abflfit 215} éays; The said fméing af fact is

‘4 canfirmed by 1€8.I’3;i€3€i Single Judge in the w;{‘it petitian. We

Y//5

,g-

d0 net find 33:13; reasfzsri ts disagfia with the Saici

fact.

Having fifijfid that th& reSj§011 i’i€i1;t””.hé;$’

Lmaufliexfiisedly” B.bSf3I1i for abgut iii} “::,{ays:,»7’ti;{é: La§;3c¥=;1:’ ;

Cfiilfi has rightly held the ” ‘-zziisifozifijitzct of
unautizorised _a§ser:€«:=, me-ffir1’§–,:A weak} not be
suificien: 11:: atfiast the 3;:I:’.;ri a;:. sf Iviay ha, the

rézspendent rériiéaiiiééd :aJ2sé3;1{ far 2 ‘5? days dlzring the

year 1934’ in But, at the time cf
refusal 0? wfiiaiiziaxat was tizlautherisefly

abs<:~:z1t_ ff}? as Iightiy' had by {ha Labour'

5»–.¥:6ii_as bfémiééfirned Singia Judge. The Labaur

byv..:V€§§5e"1"%:i'-giilg its &is<:rc:~':ti011 j:1dicieu:§1}:' lindar "(ha

2 facifi *a;_adV_'vC§3'f:éi:Amsta11<:es has rightly cexiclufied that 133.6

'~:i:"iia:f_ sf 'dismissal is disprepexticixata ta thf: proved

m i:=_-tfioazduct sf mmajnixzg absent far 20 days

nzzaiiiiiarisediy. Tharafara, {he Labour C0311 is justifiad

in Grsiéring raiIis€;at€m€:nt <31" {ha respandeizt E*§'i'{.h{}1}*€,

V')

baciéjvages, withhgldiiitg G116 i:1cr&§n€:n1:. 'F}::ae :1iii~:g3i"€:tio11

exarcisafi by the Laban? Csurt caznzat be_;'_'éa}.ii

"I

erreniszous 91" :;113:*1?7d61’4 *

thés: {,’3x:}*a:,:”‘t.

We dz”) 1103; fin-:;i :*e_a”5- Gii ta.-i1i%:e1fjf€_:.5€ with the arderr

E8~S3€<3 $5? 'fhé ' as by the beamed

Single Judge és;~€f;'1f:;': ';3:§:'E;}.}€$'i".i.:i.;€i p1';0 §:$ér arid. justified undel'

the facts aria?<:ircL1::;é't§;r£¢::=$}TA"«;}f~'{11e C356. Accordingly, the

appeal faiiss §31*1<§ ':3é;113é'- élismissed.

fix

Sd/- ; ~
Chief I113"-C9

sa/g__
Judge

* *'§:sk{*