IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE '.
DATED THIS THE 2"' DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICES. ABI;)»ifL'1'%{<12:'EEY€ .:_': ii %
W1zIrPE;"1r10NN0.15a3sa2oa5 (%LKsfRrQ_ &_%_%% . 1 % '
Between:
Sri Arifulla,
Agedabout52years._. ji L 1» _
Sic Ab&1lGafoor, ~- V '
R/a No.7l0, --
Ko1arTown, Kolar. 2; ~
The
3 """
_ % Respondent.
7 Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 ofthe
praying to quash the impinged award dated
2.9,8.20%G5 passed by the II Additioml Labour Court, Banglore,
This W:-it Petition coming on for Preiiminary
Group this day, the Court made the foflowing:
ORDER
Tim petitioner had been working
Koiar (for short ‘Corporation’). The
6.10.1987. The charges wen: mega . T ” on the
basis of which the” ‘ hue: fiom
service. geve {Q :.-.n[ inémial diwute and the
workman Lexi Section I0(4-A) of the
rmn:sui;a1;j Agfberoge the H Additional Labour Court,
V. relied on the enquiry proceedings heid
produced the enquiry file. The workman
H VV °””°fi>d “” ‘lfthe domestic enqu1ry’ . Since the charge
se:i9.I.:s, tl1.e dismissal ofthe petitioner was upheld by the
3
Labourcouztandtmapplicationfiiedbytheworkmanwas
dianissed by the inmlgned award.
2. I have heard the learned Coumel forthe ,_ ‘
Labour Court was not yum” ‘tied in ho1d:’ngM’%L%%’:§§ ;s: fie
proved. It is submitted that ofnm ems mgbeen
I . I his fl ii’ i .1
awarded is the charges alleged to have
bow Pmved ag.amt ‘ the wvné J
_ the impugned award
‘ W H ‘A AA5.;I4_m§e:mrefi1lly comidered the argumas of the learned
at the bar md perused the materials’ placed on
6. As noticed above, the workman has T T
conceding the fa.1mes’ s of the domestic” iv
No.1 was answered ‘m the afirmative
Corporat1on’ has produced the relevant the
dtmesic enquiry, which are
the recoxw that the of the
Checking poim of
allegations {He has been mbjected to
by gm Wm m assistance of his 00-
did not wdduce any oral evidcnee
he has submitied his written briefas per
Ex%1916;*%T11§: agaitm the petitioner in the articles of
Vvcharge me main aixeguon’ mm’ the
‘ afier the entry made by the Trafiic Comroller
tickets ¢fRs.8.5O ps. denornxzmfl ‘on, the petmon’ ‘ er w
I . “tickets fi’om S£.No.620 to 573 ofthe said danomma$1’ ‘on and
in
,.
while makingenay in the way bill, be ms entered numbexs 6 ”
in pencil whsequently with a sole mtention _
thereafler reuse the said so tickets by gpllefiinfifme the
ulterior mafive has nmie entries
ofdenonnnat1′ ‘on of Rs.8,50 ps. fine
last 3 numbers mum has
memioned the denomnm:1′ “on of
Rs.l0r’-. The ‘§_vay_ ‘ , court below shows that
afierthe entry byiE§e«T’;’§1:I’Ei::§§”€$:§§iIi}oileratthe bus mad mm
numbezs 6 and 3 in black ink aw
7 in between numbers 6 and 3 in
peg» ya} ‘1 5°No.6 and fimn gage Nos}? to 11 has only
M % 5 and s in black id: xmzmgan mm smoe in
at stage No.12, he ms mentioned only number 5 in
Va
wotkman has offered ewlanaion for having written ”
pemi1.kishiscaseflmafiahcimwdficketsmflwpgsset;g§xg:fi§
started making’ cntnes’ in the way bill in ball *5;-. q,,- % u 1 ; ‘
not complete the entries on aocoum ‘of
he mac the pencil mm in the way ut’Vii£!,V it.Vis
petitioner has not ofiéred any
mbers 6 and 8 in black ‘ml: geavm space
in between. It is :0 fitmish
any explanation’ “”” black ink a: stage
the serial nInnAl’3«e.’rs:cf ‘ of 123.850 ps. When
with his ball pen. Even in respect of
has not cffered plausible explanation
V “V:{‘Y?& 0fi .&pprec1: ‘a1en’ of the material on record has come
eamgmiaafi that pants’ hue: lms made the are.-mid esm’1es’
with an ultetiorhgaative to reuse the tickets of
Ir’
denomimion ofRs.8.5~O ps. mm connection, the court
observed aslmderr
“lfat ail the am pmty man lost his p~;n%%rg43}% %
mm workmg,’ I do not amé H
could write the 14:0,: is;
the very same ink exée’;it–th3_’ _’ ‘ to
ticket of aenm’m:iong§Rs;s.so’ 551: me ban
pea ofthe liad the pencil
entries am. all remammg’ ‘
;.em, which clearly
” ‘ ‘on of Rs.8.$0
ps. has i::oo;:2pie$;;§’ei§Etxias and thereafter used
_ peagm as me with a sole mm to erase
[ 7 written in pencil and themaita’ re-
7. below wasalsooftheviewthattheworkman
VA ‘- Lflto fimnsh’ pmper explanation for having punched no
h Eof denomination of Rs.8.5O ps. fiom Stage No.1 to 12. The
Kk.
findings recorded by the count beiow are based on the A4 _
Court
8. Now the question is is
entiuiry? AS Peffhe involved
in as many as 17 . 3 i the revenue of
tiw pumshmem’ . It is
service for mmti vi “waned; misconduct” in the pm and
was iiato service in the year 1997. It is
” awarded by the disciplinary’ authority’
to the charge, should not be
imterf’ V exercise cf the power of review. While
thin: the amount efmeney misappropriated that becomes a
fed for awardingpunislmem. On the contrary, it is the
kn
1.
9. I do not find any
it is dismissed. No costs. V