High Court Karnataka High Court

North West Karnataka Road … vs Mehaboobsab Khajesab Dangi on 23 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
North West Karnataka Road … vs Mehaboobsab Khajesab Dangi on 23 July, 2008
Author: V.Gopalagowda & Nagaraj
 Andg"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 23*" DAY OF JULy:ebG8~'AL+%f%% "::.   _

PRESENT;  

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 

%}5ND %   
THE HO'N'BLE MR.JUs2?1@@:_dv;".;;   ' 'M
wavmdda saeaaréde ?   --  *

mmgydzzafiéoda emmmawge my swam :%1§§ '  1:'; "
mm mm eruziabmfi §r:;aas<;:;»"~?'    

9,. 8:39:93 vefesggis .a5:E$csér+;%.Z    '§;'§Vz3sm:€&5   mm

 -------- g: '.=;_ =s:;r gs mazwaw' may
mg "was? V5352}?  amofi oe.--o2e~§"*se dam
oazaeaatafio fig,  ""a=§$¢x3:a:@:bé,;%§e ?

5%.  ma earmam essaas mam-35%

- E-,svasé§é":ia *2?'

 . i%3a;°.d dispute came to be registered as

'V._Refe14e£1g;§ No.40/99. Notices were issued to both the

A  to the dispute. Ciaim statement and counter to it

  wém fiied by the parties to the dispute.

8. In the claim siatement, the workman. has stated

as uzttdarz 



13

respondent by the Divisional Controller i11for1ni11g the

respondent that his services were teI’1ni11ated..”z>::«4.ep_fhe

basis 01′ acceptance of resignation with

16.5.1995 and caiiing upon

deeumente to get: the pensioriaxyifl benefite

afiidavit by opening an ” ‘

aiso to 1121 up an appfieatio{:.——;§§t;*ofig_ reiiéirzee placed
upon Ex.M5 :0 Show iienefits are paid

to the responden}: en .’ V’ V’

being the fact finding

authority,’-. en appreeiaiien’ ‘of legal evidence on record,

has” 4;_-gfighily reeoifeled its finding of fact: on contentious

poiigts _.é1i1d.4’A1x,.as answered the same in favour of the

that Ex.M1 was not a vaiid

.V resiéiaatieri’ letter and its acceptance was not

‘A ‘V ” ”’V.:e{:6:xmu1u£iicated :0 the reeponderxt-workman. Therefore,

fi*;e’»’eententioI1 of the Management that there was Vaiid

” hef resignatien cannot be accepted. The finding of fact

recorded on this issue is legal and valid. While ageeing

with these fmciings, the iearned Single Judge has rightly

held that as the Labour Court has rightly come to the

‘[N/

15

backwages but with C(}I”R’iI}11ity of his sexivce along with

other consequential benefits.

17. For the reasons stated supra, we ar;’svVé;* %

N32 against the appeliant and, in exerci$e:.(§+fjw<;i1i§::po\v§§§i* –.

modify the éirection i$sued in tlizf:

learned Single Judge and tht;-awa19d.V_

as aforesaid.

18. Appes}«T:.$%–an£i:s G–f.:;.1<_;-g£:'}orc1iI1g1y.

sal-

Iudge

% Sd/…%
….. ‘