IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS TI-IE SW DAY OF' JANUAR'f:.;m20i.'C}:'--- ~
sE1"roRI;;,mV _
THE HONBLE MR.Ji:s14:cs,-H..G.RawEs;§1'
WP. No. 66sS_a";[2oQ§-.{;,;;g'ER;'V:"%'
Between:
Ramesh N Uppar
S /0 Nagappa Uppar _ .
43 yrs, occ: Nil _ '
r/0 P0stLa1<i4:;1rx-di V
Ta1u1<E3ai11i10I1%;§'LEi£V . .'
Dist:Be§'ga:im"=.~-71;' V .. Petitioner
(By ,N1'f'S'._ . Pgssoeiateis, Adv.).... V
AND; * ' V 'V '
1 The"/'.V$Sf.E}XE'C{13;i§,{"€ Engineer
, Upépar Tu.r'1ga*.Pr6ject
<Sub--div_isi0r1 No.1
' , Ranebenfi'ur" '
_ ;If~'£a\}'e.ri Tq 8:, Dist.
iKa'fnataka Neeravari Nigam Ltd
Coffees Board Building
'B2:mga.1ore .. Respondents
_(s3}'s£i M B Kanavi, Adv for R--1 8:. 2)
This WP is filed under Articie 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the award passed
by the Labour Court, Hubii in Ref.N0. 20/2002 dated 13»
3-2009 vide Annexure--F and etc.,.
This WP coming on for preliminary hearing
the Court made the following» --
ORDER
This writ petition by the0yv6rl:man~:’i.S:_”di;7eCted°.
against the award dated, 13–3?2t)0.9 pegged’
Principal Labour lriefetence
N0.2O/2OO2. 00 A V
2. By the tt01’e..0-‘Labour Court
has quashing the
ordetef’ 08-1-1986 and by directing
the’ a lumpsum amount of
/- “£l1’~–f’-3.301 and final settlement of all the
0 “tli’e–..petitioner within 60 days from the date
of the award and in default, to pay
00 l.pei”y’ment.
inte1*es’:t at 10% pa. from the date of default until
La)
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the parties and perused the impugned
Annexurewfi’.
4. The Labour Court hasI__foi.indj.thoatit’iie4’sertfiVce?Vi’
of the petitioner was terminated with effect’V’i’f’ro:rri 2%}-31+
1986 and the reference éoremment
on 7-3-2002. There years in
raising the disputef..~~~::is ‘the petitioner
had worked. Vij.éI, from 25-4-1984
to 2§3_–_1_; on consideration of
the the service of the petitioner
was to Section 25F of the
I_i1i;1usti’ia1 fiispgtes. Act, 1947. However, on the facts
‘Hand–v._vcirc:iri:stances of the case, it has held that
ofucompensation would meet the ends of
and accordingiy directed the respondents to
a Iurnpsum amount of Rs.15,000/–.
5. The learned counsel appearing for__.__’the
petitioner, however, in support of his submission. fthiaté
the compensation awarded is on the lower’ V’
referred to the judgment ofI-the.¥:ioiji’bie:z’L9-jupreirlev-.’
Court in RAJASTHAN LAL1Tidi’«:§é§:gA AC,2$;331i’,M&*i§:”‘~-is
RADHEY SHYAM (2O08(IIV1>}’,I%¥I;QJ’ 56A.”2;)..__
6. However, in’ my opi’r1i’o:fi’, the judgrne’ht relied
on by learned cou.nse1_ petitioner is not
applicable fae_ts;cf:~’:the in the present
case, afdelay of 16 years in
raisihg the ” i
this ._stag’e_,:..”iearned counsel appearing for
re_sponderi’ts,_’s11§3rnits that the respondents would
‘ ;’arfi-o_unt as directed by the Labour Court
.’within fo1f_Jrs1’Weeks from today. His submission is
placed’ «on record.
8. On the facts of the case, the approach made
by the Labour Court cannot be said to be errozihéoiis’
to warrant interference under the ”
jurisdiction of this Court undef’–A.rtie1e of»A_the».VA
Constitution of India. The wrat’pet;.t1;§n is ta;c»ctord::&:g15}~V._
dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
tw 1 ¢td;x ;ooGE
sp/-