t—–uuu- nu. — ucww .— w—- ..
llurl LUIJKI Ur nnnnninnn navn xuupagu vs nu-mu.-nu…” …-….
IN mm HIGH sonar 3;’ KFzRNA$’AKA, .,
mama TI-115 mm 25″ me: :39 2.3A<§é "
BE FGRE
mm HON'BI.»E rm.
WF.IT I,-‘m*3:’1:*:::.=1e* Nt3’..:i.”? 14022-o:33.{:,-fi§;}”
BETWEEN:
; _
5/0 mm ’13:’ x’:::Fs.i;a;A*. ” _
mm mum’ 4..5’3– A
24:13. 2:48, 11::’3′.Lt;:_ my
OPP…-~fiT¥iT
SE’.i’}’; ..TEI~’§BLE_ M M
mmnmmmG2m2;«.gL2:T:a_ ‘-
ANE2 was ”
a5§;srsa._Ltmu~–.,5e06se’- . . . pswxwxema
” .,A!:~I2:%-.v ” V
02′
HIS HCWE TECE-fl\KI.OG’1 PVT ICED
E’REE.3’«T’I’LY C%.I..L@ AS
» HIS ENCDRE S 1rm.,
“-332. 31′ ITS PmNHE’rING nmscxna
LEG cormmx, 31%;, «me 5 am new
‘ 44×45, RESI}3E~ICY (moss; man
BENEKLURU-560 925 . . . RESPGNDEHT
{By Sri: MRc1m:I,Aw)
‘>96’
:7:-um cu ——u.– -.- -._- -.—_-_
EH15 my FILEE vwnza ARTICLES é2a g3fi”é37=_
03 THE canswlrvrxag r3 EHEIE ?R§i:fi§ To CkLEV °
F03 THE ENTIRE RE¢QRn3,} R3L5T:H§, gin
IA.NG.?2f9?, an THE EILE 33 THE H&fi*sLE€iIHn,
ABEL. LABOUR. CQUET; ‘a§NsAL§Rfl’ gym 1&5 lguass
BOTH THE @3333 mg DOM£STi€ EEQUiR¥_D$§2?.3.fl3,
A CERTIFIED flDP$*§§_fiHEEH?I§;fiT_hfiH~A, AND THE
AWARD bT.5,11.o?, 3559i; ES @333 SUFEER FRQM
saaxaus $33933 é 5&3 s5§§3gR: TO THE LAW or
a T3185 W E}– cfifizmsw mg EOE EELIHINRRE
IINII1 HUURI ‘Ur nnnlinlnnrt
“IV” VI l\fIl\I’l’lll’IlIl’l luvs: I-vuns vi nruuu-u–u— an-.-
HEARENG *B’.éRovy7?fi:sv§aE},THE CQ§RT mans THE
FQLLGWING:
V”%«a*§ E R
“Thi5«”§étiéidn is by the fiirat party
W woxkmafi”asé§i§ing the award passed by the II
_ édfiiti$gal” Labour Court, Banqaigra in
“f<{:gQ,K§Lvé:1997.
X3?”
G” Tr BIIRIIEIIDUR-l”I Illvun –w–.-.
t.»
have gassed an order af dismissal. Witӎhws
that the evidence sf the wszkman was fibé $t ,
all cansidered in datail finfl”na_§repé£ xaas6fis
were aaaigned even with regard to the date dfi
tiling tha csmplaint.’
3. Accvtdiwg ta _’tE% gjigfifined caunaal
rapresentiflgL’tha gfiirsf flpafity wcrkman, a
ccmwlaifit;§§i§3t¢7§#§c bé§n filed an l7*2~1996
alleging aaid tea has 51
Company fimiid§y;§m fi@t%; éubsequently, the
Management tfiiafi in fifiréect it in tha charga
§$éet fi% ié3u;n§ a fiézrigendmn. But, in the
a$m§ig§fit;flQ;§h%§a ifi no such mendmant.
“&ccofidi@g;, é§ : the patitioner, all the
»f}aiiegatiéfié made by the Management against him
{ 4afi$ <§$;3a and his contantiana wera not
¥fi§pérly conaidered by the Laban: Cauzt,
*wherein it has cansifiarad all the cententions
W
I
"" """"'" '" ''''''"''"'''''' "W" '-'-f!-'..+- W —-r-n-~ —-u — an-….~..~…. —.-. — -__, ____
at the Management while passing
award .
5. It is seen. evesn £8’~:3’a’.iS:;’3.iI1t3 “‘_§§1§i’$.’Z.”?iiVIi<j"~ bf
dacumants neither it E='<?5'.3;%::VV:."}"zJ'.'<f3$9"I"f:§Vf3;F'A-;'i.QE5;{%%iéVt'1'C&t£a;fi
'.20 I221? waritman ri:=:é2a:«_ ficwiments
was prepared $ : But, the
Encguiry ;'*':i\':'EA:1fL:f*;c:a;ieA:_ g Its: mark: the
«:i::;- ctume ' wi thcnit egiv ing an
app;§£:§fi'ni.:ty §a'.?3_'ifi'i? ::;ner ts: have his say
in the :s.1a'z:".'.g";:':__;:. ?'..
the '€i'if~:V3%.1z":1at.a*-.11:::ea, the impugned award
__a.~.usV the enquiry hralrzi by the Enquiry
Qffi:,e_zi'j'..-'?are B23: szsiztie and the matter is
retfiifited back ta the Labour Cauzt Em: fresh
=_<;i_'_f;spa3a3. cf the same in accordance with law
E and the Laban}: CG¥1J'.'t is rclirezzted to affzzxxd an
cappmctunity ta lead additianal avid-anzze while
XV
IUI1 LUUKI Ur nfllflflinnn ruwn uvygnr vu l\rIl\IIrIIIrInrI. um… —– —-.. –. -_ -..- — — -._ –
My
diapcsing at the matter. Accardi§§§§; tha
petitian is alicwed.
The parties are directefi ts aggéar fiéfeig
the Laban: Court an 72%” *Juif;fl?§C§V anfl
thereafter, matté: sh§iE $eTd@apoééd”éf by the
Labour Court within tfixéé m¢fiEfi$ the.
Sega hagfigtfia xgcgrfifi fié tha Laban: Caurt
£or$hw#th; §4_fp
. ;_ Eidl.
Iudge
_v