THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA A.T'«--,
BANGALORE _t
DATED THIS THE 21" DAY or ~
BEF()R¥3'.~~~ A
THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE t
wR1'1'PE'r11;1_9N N(i.~-176619 ()3; %L--§'i'i:;1{'
BE'I'WEEN:
Mfs. Prefessional Managcnécnttfiérvicesg' V
Now situated at" _ V L' " 1
Lcve}§2--l4,;'TO?{¢ti'
The A
Murphy RL);;d,i:__U}_sodi.' '
Bangalare-5A6000'8T.::,; '* " _ ._ " ~ *'
Now feprcsehtésd .t_>yits' _' "PE-TITIONER
(By s;i."M,.Ie.c_ka§:t;v%Aa§;t) kt'tt
_A.;'~:9:
._
'Site i*tIu.ii;yu;:ipp£g,
'N033, 4g*'.'CrGss, SreekanteShwaran,agar,
M3haia.kz~:}_1iiaiA Layout,
'.V Bang,aI"mje4§60G96. ..RESPONDENT
” n{By..Sri:K.SrinSvasa & Mfg. STM Associates, Advs-)
This Wfit Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to» quash the award dated
52,03 passed by the Adtil, Labour Court in I.D.N0,67f0} g. dimct
AIL”
that the labour Caurt ought not to have interfered with the said
order by reinstating the workman. It is further
even awarding (If back wages is not a meter (“sf ‘i1ie* ii
charges are heid ta be proved and fliereiflwaa. r_m..’c)cea_.<ii19:n f0'r–:'£he";
labour Court to pass an order of rifiiack ~.
there being any evidence on reeorkie» this reTgar<i:i;
5. As per the submission tiie ‘Counsei for the
respondent-wgrirznéfii to: demand the
payinexrtiiifarreiars allowed to dn the duty
and ulfirizateiy ‘he legal ncatice 0f unauthorised
absence. illegally iéaaiiiiiitted that he has not voluntarily
i ii *ab§er:ee was a deliberate act cm the part of
I ifi)~.remain absent rather, he was prevented from
attcii’ding,’ fiie iiutées-
x 6.’}i”‘aving heard the Ceunsel for the parties, the point that
w_¢;iu}d’ arise for eonsiderafien is, whether the impugned award
ii V’ by the iabour Court requires interference?
W
8. Accordingly, petition is aliowed in part. The order
implemented in two months.
Bkp.