High Court Karnataka High Court

S Lakshmana vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 17 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Lakshmana vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 17 July, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

WWW €

i
E
2
§
gas
§
%
g
3
§
Q
E
§
3

»u”o:.0 wm W

M<"'m:'MWea &5'i5ii"?rW'5¥J-5 WW

IR was amen counm cs xnnnnraxn, nanaamoaafa

namzn runs was 17" any 02 JULY 2o¢% ; i ; .

BEFORE

was HflN'BL£ xx. avswrcx Huzvvzfix G a§3xaH "};7

warm PETITION HD.16?99!2¢G§fL~KSRf¢f":

BE'l'W£I€1'¥:

5 LAKSHNANB
AGED ABOT 51 23535.-k
i/0 K.SIBnAPRA

R/O soyanpvn amen
HDRAPET ;”‘§,* g
CHITRADUREa~* :,:~

u _h : ;§§ é§rIrxawmn
{By s:1M:_s.$’gggggsafiégagmzfiv I
nan : I %u %fl .’
THE nIvIsxd3LcdT§hnfi&%

Ksamc, RA§fiNGER£’DIVI$IdN
navauengg = =M< V … RRSPGDENT

Affiy Sr: ; fl*$°3A§ESfl,.AB? 3

2318 $? £tixn Human anmxcnzs 226 Ann 227

.jgQ: tan casrzwvrzas or IRDIA pnaxzns TD qmasa
_ _ «¢H$»:urugnén eanzn nT.17~1e–2oo2 aasssn IN xxn
*.31=]¢fu§§iv£i2¢oo Ha Hb.ID.88f2003 vans ANN.G Ann

wmvww

Tifis 'WP. CO!§I¥$ mi' 303. HEARING
'1'!-E CGEIRT HRDE TIE ¥O :


 Day,

This petition in    J

the award dated  

Industrial sfixila. éimissing
the dispute %%]”i:c%}kj%A176/zooo rm
Ha.ID.88( also sought
for and further
sought. t ‘~:£%£>£’*§:_: =6. ta rasinatata the
bank times and fax:

such Estgievz ‘

2. *.,v.,4V’thé:'”~-.1eunnd counsel fax the

an “¢mWu0″‘W5i’\6$’- WE mmmmmwmm mssww mmwwwa wua” wmwwwaéflfifi Wfiérii-W mmmflw W? %%fl?*£fl%”¥”&%& Mgfiw mam Q? mawflmm Mmw QQMEW W?

Lij%}%%;¢spe¢cm gamma.

i[‘jTi;é”*–3;atitiono:: jcinad. the saxvizze at the
“.}:q_hféod:ient-Corporation as a Condu¢to::. While

Vfiras confiucrting titan vahiale bearing

33/

the Laban: Court at Hnhxi. The Laboafigcauzt

by its order detasd ‘F10–2002 on 4:16

fairness at the enquiry,

the merits of the can

the manner in which flag
conducted, paased a ¢£fi§t1a drag: h$;éing tag:
the Isnquixy hel§.”/%,ia Further
it is natiged was not givon
an itoih the repartinq
V§V§ri;’&’onca in ascacardanaa

“Mmw”: mvwfli WI?” mmmwéwmmfl i”Hi:W QUWNE U? K%@€N%”§fiK% WWJVW QQUUWY WW Wa.§%lNfi¢.’fi”Mm %§§G%'”§ WWW fig Wgfifi CWURV Q?

4. What» b:a§§;t1′ v’qu.eai§;Lc>n¢d by the leamad
¢§#fi$QiW”gé$ Vgna §§£it1oner is that the

which was held fair and

Iiraboux ccsuzt shcrald have been
prcpex: finding given an the said
Elnuteaad. u cryptie an-rdez: has bun
‘ T ‘fi§§$aa% holding that tha workman has net

than opportunity of cross-examination.

W .

But that itsolt will not speak to fact

that the enquiry held in fair and

Labour Ccsurt ought to

maturial placed bofoza ‘1

the enquiry hold is};

mrits, in so far mtticzkcfis
aftaz: ccsllection of “no:
tickets are ccncegnod, Laban:

Ccsurt has come;    that

the changes      '

5. Ethan of tieksta by
the wm:k11f.an_ ;§§’1: ‘t:lz; e Quhmisaion made; very

siif;§§’n;g9i3¥ I,aho_ 11$ “” Court has ebaax-wad that

it ‘a1}au;V=xV«£€;$tv Ti:2;§vV.£-.i«:nt party wcsrman to explain

Aw£zatV.__v”c:L15:£:uu:stanc::as, the said tickets

‘”‘§}§’1:s§:”‘.:;:¢#i$s:u;§:d. on the paint of preliminary

‘ ‘ fLisfizfifi’-.V_it3.$1f; the concluaicn arrived at by the

‘L%a’.)._’:e:z.mT§ court is am: basgd an the material

placed rather ngntioning in the arder

Ear-9;’

» “-0WI*”W”‘V2t9P.K’&W writ

wwmmavmwmwwm mmwm m…im««.a;_jma MW” wmmwmmmm WEWW mama! Q?’ KAfiNATAK.& WSGH COQR? 0? %&%WA7’A§CA. Hifiéfi @0133? fl}? %&flNAW’5%%A W§GH fl

U
3
E
3

é
§i
E
E
fie
Q
5%
&
3
Q
Q
3
§
x
8%
Q
E

swim &..u’we¢;a wr” mmmwmfimflfl Wfilwfi hifitlfifi {W WfiRNA’§’fiKfl filfifl HOUR”? 05″ KARNATAKW H§GW fimm? Q?’

sheet that on perusal of the roc:::’§f:»,. the

enquiry shown ta be held fair

that itself would not be s1:1£::,Lc’,¥.’_:3″;Vsz’::A:.A:*T.::’

that the enquiry hold

6. In the circuma£’¥.’;,§:a§, is
allowed and :5; max on the
Preliminary on merits in
x:ejecti;n§ :’t.:ii’§:! aside and the
matter: ‘A Vtha Labauz: Cam’: ta
A’ nccoxdanca with law
épportunity ta hath

pfilfi-.i¢B ‘¥ I} ”

Sd/-.

fudge

” ‘§g;1:;’V”-*