TH-E HON’BLE MR. Jusmcm 5.3.’ %
Tl-IE HOWBLE MR.’ qtjawnfzn oowm
MAl..GfihV!LiAG1;,A”‘-..__ . ;
* N.I;(3.fiLi9;A,EE-!A3.7I=!1< gyms,
VISHWA NVEEDAM-.P0S'P. _,
3.A1~:r_:_»e;1,Jr_m.ey:.:;'(.-r.: A99;
J APPELLANT
* _ {tat}: am. My CHAi’iB5’iA8HEKARA mom. ADV.)
I ‘V .A.uh . ” V
I : v ‘ . . 7::
I 2 A , 1 ‘HllIi|”.fil1lfl|fl| II-Ina mun A|I’l.l”|’lll3
~.;. .1 *–“:_mx.vnIl:tI’ lnnrrlu nllnuun
NI ‘1’ C CENTRAL OFFICES,
~-un ‘AIl\t..’l’lllAl1A n I! Ll arm n
nnau rnurnvu-us. mnunvnug
‘BANGM.ORE.
-52-
‘I’H!S .A.P?EA!.-1.3 man we «I or
HIGH coum AC1′ PRAYING To am’ ASIDE THE 033312. rinssm)
IN THE WRIT PETITION No.23s78/2005 .I)II’I’H§D ‘I’4]a,?~;.éoO7’§_
THIS vmrr APPEAL comma mpI
HEARING. THIS DAY. BAIiIflUl_§MA’i’i!. “.1, E)’Ei;’SfF.l2§f}D5 m3 =
FOLLOWING:
There is a the appeal and
as such, of delay.
In order’ purpose would be
;IervI;=¢1″‘i.:1. ‘.”I1:.’;’-:=r’.i 11.r..i.¢_m_:-:_1.ri..I_sz1_ Qf -1:.-.1»-ey ;a_r.-.-I.
thm:u— f'””.” haar ~ma–Ip””mpeI- ibr aum1″””ssiIirI, we aiao
co1Ie1dcIisd I12; osikments.
I’I’____I _II__.¢
fhe iearn’ eounaei Ior”” the I’ippI’:ua11″ ~ I.
Ilaflfi .-.r.! by h . erfler
aw-‘iv
A’~.s_…__: 1 l\A\1\!1’ ,..u_____1__..1_.__
?……’I……._ (L _ A.1__ — ___.n_1A.1__ L’…
U .I..D.AUUl Cllflllllfifllllg HIE WITII. IEIJIIIQI, UIC
-writ petitioner has approached this Court in
H the present appeal.
fi..J’-V
-3-
l’l’\’L… 2-14.
4. ill wul. ‘p6’|”.1’I.’it’5fiIT’.I” WES ‘I’.I’_?a§
working as a driver with the »
Tran sport Corporation. Itis alleged; A
his rash and negligent V’ iitsaused i’
ll’
“‘9
=_-.r.:;ir.ie.1r2t flag em-. nm’sr..m.– the irgu-.
… LLLL _4_.+I ALL ._ Ah.
several omens. as it was
found iof the charges
levelled to be terminated
on l:.’:’:ii;:_; the same, he raised
Court on consideration of the
undisputed rough sketch and scene
i ibund that the accident has taken place
‘i side of the road which is wrung side tbr
drieizig d the use .:.-I::*. t…… –*-=- –m …M.—ptable
c
:
S
E
v.ei{pianation by the driver. However, considering the
totality of the evidence. the Labour Court held that
there was euntributory negligence on the part of the
5/0′
-4-
pI–_l– V ‘ca -:3:-g J I-t— pn_aua-nJ–u:’-gnu’-.-‘nun -A cox
u 11.]. ’15 (II II].
Illlulllllly III3uII.u(3L’.E:__
order of dismissal was set asidemgcl
be reinstated with no be
punishment of wflhholdi1ig:”of L’
the
in its entirety, going
-…….g tbs.-. Jae was
5.
t..mi.g!I the mm
s.._; –__ __
Eifif) 3111? LN’BSl_JV i__TlA3.IV”‘»abfi W T1631!” 4,36!’ It ClI”*L’.lVIl’L’lg’ Cl’iiiBll1″‘_§
two occasions, the learned Single
‘ Judge the order penned by the Labour Court of
lid
‘ of withholding three increments with
11-nu’! Hun 1-III’:-rvf I-In-nnll-. 1-hp nrl-_anmI’ nnnnnl
éi-IQWIIU lufl’-‘fl£§’w KQ’-I tnjofit “VWU
6. Aiter healing the counsel for the appellant
and on going through the material placed before the
5x)-
» “cr :7
.5.
Lawur mu:-t as Wei} *3 the award, we
abaoiutciy no error, illegality V . i
Passed by the Labour lag”
Single Judge. which
H3103 “W aPP°&!l1!;.@1*~=L_–..a”;.&.r.1€.’sa,tcid 5*” In ‘v’iaw
of me same, of delay, the
appeal
Sdf-
Judge
Sd/-
Judge