1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2975 DAY OF MAY 2008
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE s. ABDUL NAf_»:1?":_ jER_ '
WRIT PETITION No.13593/:§0Q6'*gI,gg 1.
BETWEEN :
NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD ' _ L
TRANSPORTCORPORATION -- _ '
GOKUL ROAD ' "
HUBL1-580 020 _. §
BY rrs MANAGIN(}_DI§2EG?O£-I
NOW REPRESENT'E£3B'&"3I}'s _
CHIEF LAW OFF'IVCE_R;"«_V ' .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI: A1§1?;) %
Am) : % A V
RAMU JANAPPA i<A.LA3iJ'RGz
-V AGE m';oR; OCC:EX=DR_I_V§§R
R/0, wARu"No:§;, NEAR {DAG-A
'~VMA1m.N, uPmL:B:3_1:zz
~ ._ sxncfia, bEcEAéED.9'
REPRE'€~EN'i_'ED.BY HIS LRS
A sM?r;v.ri'mvA'11
.. A 'T53./O. RAMU KALABURGI
* ,AQ2.E MAJOR, OCQHOUSEHOLD WORK
v R]O. WARD NOJI, NEAR iDAC:A
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ
BIJAPUR'
IO
3
R/O. WARE) NO.II, NEAR IDAGA
MMDAN, UPPALI BU!"-31?.
IBIJAPUR
MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL
GUARDIAN MOTHER LE. RESPONDENT
NO.1 PARVATI
PRAVEEN
S/0. RAMU KALABURGI V
AGE: 14 YEARS, 00¢; SFUDENT
12/ 0. WARE) 110.11, NEAR IDACEA
MMDAN, U!”-‘PAL! BURZ *
BIJAPUR . _
MINOR, REPRESENTED “BY HIS NA”i’¥J¥?A’L,
GUARDIAN MOTHER _
No.1 PARVATI _
ANIL
S/O.RAMU KALe;’x’Bi5RGrI ‘
AGE: 11. YERRS,1-‘K13: SI’1JI}~ENT’ ‘
12/ 0. WARD 1103.11, NEAR ‘iI,1’§\G”A”
MAIDAN, U”P.E’ALi–1B{JEéZ_’
i3IJAPUR .. _ .
MINQR, 12EPREs*Em’ED1w5Y— His NATURAL
GUARDIAN 1~11o’r1-1.13:1?’ ILE. RESPONDENT
No.1PARvA’1’1 ‘ ..
SI-11v1A1~1AN B A
3/5). RAMU KAl;A£3_ijRGI
AGE: :10 YEARS, 1300: STUDENT
, ‘ =R1_’C._’WAR.D’ 110.11, NEAR IDAGA
_ 111111131151, EJPPALI 1311112
” ._’B1_..11n.1’1u.1′<*..,,_ '1
AMINOR, kE:.PréEsEN'rED BY HIS NATURAL
Gi!AR.§)IAM–"MOTHER 1.1:. RES?(}NDEN'I'
NO.1 1»11_RvA'1*1
" KUM. VANISHRI
* . -D/0. RAMU KALABURGI
AGE: 8 YEARS, occ: S'i'(3DEN'1'
512 10. WARD 110,11, NEAR IDAGA
~ MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ'
5
It is the case of the Corporation that while the Corporatigstg
was conticmplafing a disciplinzaxy action, the .,
mqucsted for voluntary mfimmcnt on the ground
health. On his teqtzaest, the Divisfiona.E”Cc.+nt:t1i:1cr;4
muted’ him’ from sc1Vlcc’ w.::.£ :
the corporation, the wnrkman
benefits. The workman ”
the respondents u dispute
u/s.1()(4~–A) ofthc claimed a
cicclaration 30.09.2001
as void ofwms till the
date of haw let in evidence before
the court . of he material on record,
the hc;Ed Tthat that the worlunan was
Vlélyvl” view’ of the matter, 1111: court
to pay the wages and other
mane!-a__1Vy as admissible to the workman tbr a
.. of months. The corporation has challenged the
th3s’ writ pct1t1o’ ‘ n.
3.
E
1)”
2. Learned Counsel for the Corpomfimn wouizi
contend that the workman had retired from .,
20.09.2001 under voluntary retirement scheme. V’
below, without appreciating the
has erroneously held that the workxfian V
terminated. Thus, the order cf
interference. On the otherf the
respondems has sought td order.
3. I of the
learned at the Bar and
perused i3_1e an -record.
“Ox: ‘of the Cozporatiozi, two witnesses have
exam. . mi M.\iHfe’.’1 and 2 and the document Ex. M.1
evidence. On behalf of the
Z Iespbaagienis, wimess has been eined as W.W. 1 and
” have been marked as Ex.Ws. 1 to 46.
E
s
V:
R
7
5. Smt. Parvathi, wife of the deceased employee, who
was examined as W.W. 1 has stated in her evidence that
husband had no intention to voluntaxily retire ffmm j
and did not tender any resignation voluntarily 1
but only put his siwatuze on a ‘
the Depot Manager on the spa; offlflie ‘V
purported to gve him the ‘en;-.nefi:s inc:nain”g;:%’£1n=,~
appointment of his depeiid.e_11ts’; ‘”
was not at all extended in the
meantime, he w.3n–nnn_t stating that
his been accepted.
As been produced in
support the ‘respondents. No doubt,
the wimesseéqkho h,a§e_ Been examined on behalf of the
_. haveleuppegited the case of the corporation.
” The below, on proper consideration of the
.ve«fVfjxe-:”pa11ies and the documents pmduced by
theni,’–~.._has_v’ that the workman had not voluntarily
nun service. The finding of fact recorded by the
%
8
court below is on the basis of appreciation of the
placed on record. I do not find any crmr in
finding. Consequently, the writ ”
accolriingly No costs.