I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE am DAY OF JULY, 2a$9 '%_%__;- 1:' "
PRESENT
THE HON' mg MR. P.D.DINAF.A"R'A'F3A, é_C'HI£?}F g:Ii}:»";'IfIt§E
THE HON' BLE MR. v.€}a;?Am_",G'(;2$§?"D'A'
WA N0 7023 OF~-2é_§€_}8fL~KSR'I'C}'---A
N{)R'I'H was? KARNATAKA 1°-jao;=s»::>ij* V
TRANSPORF c:oRm:eA'I*mN. E _
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI 020
NOW REPRESENTEf)«..B'{'
CHIEF LAW OFFICER * %
APPELLANT
{By Sii; ":3 PATIL -- ADVOCATE)
AND = 4- --
RAMU JANAPPA KALABUIQGE
AGE ; MA-.I?ORL'OCC : E:se:,DR;.vER
Rf; 0.WAi2D' 1\:_0 .I1;« NEAR IEAGA
MAIEJAZE, U;:>m_Li-- .B'tIRz
BIJAPUR_586"'1Qi "
" .._.S.INc:E n1:gj(:EAs.E'i§V.
REPRESETNTEQ BY HES LRS
" " 1'; VTPARVATI
= % WiQ.RAMU KALABURGI
'AGE V:'»--.'§4!AJOR, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK
R] O'.;WARD N0}! NEAR IDAGA
F §-'.4A_I.DAN, UPPAL} BURZ
'BVEJAPUR
4PRA2<AsH
S] ORAMU KALABURGI
AGE : 24 YEARS.
.31JA§*~t::R I '
{NJ
(306 : PRIVATE SERVICE
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ, BIJAPUR
. RAVI
S]().RAMU KALABURGI
R/GWARD NCLII, NEAR IDAGA
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ
BIJAI-'UR
S/ORAMU KALABURGI
AGE : 22 YRS. OCC : NIL
R/ONVARD NOJI, NEAR IDAGA; .
MA§DAN, UPPALI BURZ V
BIJAPUR
. KUM RAJASHREE
D/ORAMU KALABURGI ., , ~
AGE: :8 m~s.0cc;s'ru9Em§ ;
R/QWARD NO.Ii, HEAR IZDAGA'
MMDAN, UPPALI BURZ 3:
BIJAPUR ' . . A
. I-{UM JA3fSHREET'L'v."V = V
D/0.RAR71U KALBURQ1.
AGE : 16 YRS. ace-_; S'TUijElN'i'
RICLWARD NQ.I1, NE~AR._ID;%GA
MAIDAR; UPPALI-. Bvrez '
"'.M11f~:i"3R, REP. "£?§?vHER NATURAL
(3=U&RDiAN--A.Mt3TH}}3R I.E..RESPON[)EN'I'
N("). 1 9ARvA'15:.
. KUM EIMASHREE
~ .. .1'; 'D10.RAr'»5u'i~KALABURGI
'- "AQ£::;._1s YEARS. OCC : STUDENT
' R_{x'J._W2?,RD No.11, NEAR IDAGA
._ ~MA.![)A1.N, UPPALI BURZ
"BIJAPUR
. MINOR REPRESENTEE) BY HER
, NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
" ' LE. RESPONBENT NO. 1
PARVATI
. PRAVEEN
\x/
. PRASHANT
S/ORAMU KALABURGI
AGE : 14 YEARS. OCC; : STUDENT
R/CLWARD N€).II, NEAR IQAGA
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ
BIJAPUR
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
LE. RESPONDENT N031 PARVATI *
9. ANIL
S/0.RAMU KALBURGI _
AGE 11 YRS. occ : STUDENT
R/<:).wAR1:) NO.II, NEAR IDAGA
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ
BIJAPUR ' 5 _ .,
MINOR REPRESENTED BY"-HIS ;
NATURAL GUARDIAN MO’I’I~IE}R_
LE. RESPONDENT No.1 PARVATI ”
1().SHIVANAND – ~
S/QRAMU Ki;LA;3:3RG:.. ,
AGE : 10 YRS. oC<:.:';,s'rLr1)RN:P~
R/o.wARRi)%'Nc2,1i;, NERR [GAGA
MA1DAN,1,URRALi'31;Rz.%
BIJAPUR j '
MINOR REPRESEN'?Ei§~ 33% R13 '
NATURAL GUARDIAN-_MOTPi.¥3R
LE. REss?0NaEN*raN0;1 PARVATI
2 .1.KUM VANISHRI,
/ QLRAMU 'Kfx§,IE§»1IRGI
AGE .;_.3 'r'R':3.,_ ace' :1. STUEENT
} R /O.WA'RD 'N'G..IE',;: NEAR IDAGA
' MAEDAN, URRALI BURZ
BIJAPUR
~ ~ MENOR REPRESENTRR BY HER
_ NA'1*URA;., GUARDIAN MQTHER
mg. R_§3',SPON{)ENT N().1 PARVATI
g"i?..SHA:RANU
, ~_S)"O.RAMU KALABURGI
'AGE : 5 YRS. occ: NIL
" 'R/0.wA.R£) N().II, NEAR IDAGA
MAIDAN, UPPALI BURZ
BIJAPUR
M:NoR REPRESENTED BY ms
\\\/
NATURAL GUAREXAN MOTHER
LE. RESPONDENT N03 PARVATI .. RESPONDENTS
THIS WRFI' APPEAL FILED U/S 4 05' THE KA_RNATAK!§ r.-men
coum' ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER' –;PASE3ED "iNf"frHs';
WRIT PETITION NO. 13593/2096 EDATED 29.5.2008, ~ ,. ._ '~
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING on Hoe _:éRjeL1M:.N'AR'¥'~HEAréING–«._ 4&1
THIS DAY, GOPALA oowm. J., DELWERED. FOLLO WlIv{(}' =
JUDGMENT'vV:_V'?' W
The dismissa} of writ e"V§.1:e:pug11ed order dated
29.5.2003 is chaflengeti grounds and
prayed to allow the the impugned order
passed by the also to quash the award
dated 19.12.2oo5 ;ee;ee.:;e.e;2ee2 by the Labour Court,
Bijapur.
stated as hereunder to appreciate the legal
file learned counsel for the appellant-North
Reed Transport Corporafion (Hereinafter called as
fie; short) with a View to find out whether any substantiai
A. . _ ‘iziw would arise for our consideration in this appeai?
The deceased employee Rama Janappa Kalburgi of the
N’WKR’I’C raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (4&A) of
V
the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act (By Act 36 of 1986)
(hereinafter called as the II) Act for shert). The iiidusttiai
dispute between the legal representatives of the
and the NWKRTC is that the temiiriatiofiof t;.ede-aged.
employee on the wound that he iro1iii;té1ii,13,% re:
retirement from the services
Divisional Controller of the’ retired the
cieceased employee from 20.9.2001 and
according to the was paid all
the terminal di’eé:if’oe’2. 1 2.2001. The deceased
Workman ‘._iiis1iViute before the Labour Court
against the termination from services on
the alleged _ rethement, sought a deciaratory
::.=.+1iies’ e3:§1eI;x§of””*tei91nir1a1ioIi dated 20/9/2001 is void alt»
ir1itit)i_’ii*i_1e.W sought further (iireetion to pay arrears of
V-wages of his death.
eendueting an enquiry by the Labour Court under
iof the II) Act, {in proper appreciation of the evidence on
‘ the Labour Court has passed an award dated 19.12.2005
a éeeiaratory relief as prayed by the deceased empioyee
and therefore, declared that the termination order passed against
\/
him as imzaiid and further directed the NWKR’I’C to pay wages and
other monetary benefits as admissible to the Workman fiom the
date of his unauthorised absence tiil 2.11.200 1 which isjtehe date of
death of the deceased workman, after ef
unauthorised absence as ieave that was avai1ai3ie’for deceased.
If the leave falls short, the rest of
absence be treated as special ieaye Viiithciit the
entire period of unauthorised ahseiice
on account of dismissal ‘of and further
directed for grant of jvyvincluding the famiiy
pension in favour? fepteseiatafives of the deceased
workman. is A _ _ __ .
5. The ‘coirectzieiss ‘file same is challenged in the writ
petition grounds contending that the findings and
the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour
L» iiisawarti on the points of dispute 1 and 2 is not
V__on’i.y ‘hut also suffers from error in law. The said
.1 is examined by the learned Single Judge in exercise of
review mwer. The learned Single Judge after noticing
‘ eifidence of the management witnesses MW} and MW2, the
dsdeeumentaiy evidence ~– Ex.M. 1, the evidence of workman Witness —
\N\/
WW1 documents which are marked as Exs.Ws.} to 46, held that no
intention on the part of the deceased workman, the husband of
SInt.Parvathy who alleged to retire voluntarily to from
services of the Corporation and also further held render
any resiglation voluntariiy to his post with
only put his signature on a typed letteebgét
Manager on the spot with the of the
the benefits including appomtmenteofeiais depeggeente,
6. The learned Single, Judge—ha$-.eX3».minedvtlrxe/correctness of
the finding of fact recorde’d” 1 of the documentary
evidence oxfi-eeor<iVv "of the contention of the parties and
held that oral dercementary evidence produced by the
parties tVheV.'1ézbo;1__1j,co1n*i:, the deceased workman had not
vo12;r;t,eri1y re%d'"'fifom the service of the Corporation. Therefore,
has declined to interfere with the finding
1-.of feet reeorded 'the labour Cour'; in its award while answering to
of dispute framed by it for its detezmixaation.
'V-'iT'{J'otiseVo;uent1y, the Writ Petition of the Corporation is dismissed.
We
7. We do not find any erroneous reaeoning or error in iaw on
the findings recorded on the contentious point in the
existing industrial dispute between the zegai
representatives of the deceased workman. jWe
find any rmson whatsoever to i11ter’fé3:afe ‘A
order passed by the Learned or avééxfi
passed by the Labour Bijapu–1:{.Appea§.,is..{ievoid of merit
and is accordingly, dismissedie – ‘ iv: ,
Chief Justice
oooo e Sd/-5
gm/nae fo V