" :1:v1$I.:_}N.A;,_L(:<3;~1T12<5LLERT »
..I.
1:: THE HIGH coum or KARNATAI-EA, BANGALORE"-V ~..
DATED Tms THE 2m DAY OF' SEPTEMBER, 205$
BEFORE ._ H V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE RAM Morzjgi-Tikmbv
WEE'? PETITION No. 44:23'/52997V(L:KsRTc3' ' .
BETWEEN 1
B A RAVINDRA ' ._ f
S/O ASHWATHANARAYANAPPAVT '
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS - V g
R/AT POST BYRAHA1.:;r'
TALUK MALUR, KOLz'-'£3. '
PETITIONER
{BY SR1] sis/§T;--~v..é 'issjiliii iE;s.»MB«Ti§lJi}L§§'?€--v .¥:\ns1o1s:.., KOLAR * ~'
REPBY 1T8 _ '" '
RESPONDEWF
"§EiTiTION ES FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227~O}?--.'fi'HE} £1ON§1fI"i'I'UT1ON OF' INDIA PRAYENG TO QUASH THE
' AWARD DTD, ':2r3;04.20o5 PASSED BY THE 11 ABDL. LABOUR
COURT'; B£¢.NCi1'!£LORE, IN i.I3.NO.99/' 1998, THE CERTIFIED COPY
C11?' w1-:m1~1g_ IS PROIDUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
" ~ . '£'sN1\lEXURE~E, BY WHTCH THE LABOUR COURT HAS REJECTED
'1'fI7¥E'L€1LAIM OF THE PETITIONER' WHICH IS ILLEGAL,
- AF1EflTRARY AND AGAINST THE PRGVISIONS 012' THE I.D.AC'I'
--..£uNL} ETC.
THIS WRIT PETETION COMENG ON FOR FRELEMINARY
;T~1EARIN'<:; THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWENG:
MK
-2-
ORDER
The petitioner While working as a conductor V K
xesyondent-Road ‘Franspofi; Corporation, K
‘Management’, disciplinary proceec1ih»%g”‘ was inii_{i afe_d: “ihr
misconduct of unauthorised loog abasexieez VV ”
petitioner was governed by ‘–§1n;91e§yeeeV”‘Le’eve
Rules 1964, for short Rules. ‘fihdingt petifrioner
g”u11′ ty and being of the sezvice was
proper punishx;1e:1ét,v.. _the;_’ imposed. the
puniehxfiefit by onzier (it. 5.3. x993.
The petiuitiohherh 10(4-A) of the indusma’ 1
Disputes ..1947,-%_&x«,~_’%s1§on Act, fiied a claim statement
= as before the Ii Acidl. Labour Court,
;’vt”«:\rrsz_}1ox’t Labour Court, raising an Industrial
iI)i~:3phuhte,v question the order of the management,
which fies hvresisted by filing statement of objections of the
V.x’ee’pc.r;«1dent. in the premise of the pleadings of parties, the
* Court framed three iesues, recorded the evidence of
” Wthe enquiry ofiicer as MW4 and marked six documents as
Exs.M1 to M6, While the petitioner examined himself as WW-
M
-3…
1. The Labour court by order dt. 6.1.2003 if _
preiiminary issue in the aifirmative holding. .1: ”
enquiry as fair and proper. ‘Thereaftenxz-e,Itivs,u’~sthe.’métitiottezfis
examined Dr.K.SriI1ivasaiah ae , wfieneeét
respondent-Management too
as MW-1. The Labour Vtheuxmatexial
on record, the evidence held. that
the petitioner ;;ii(1«:é§;o§ ettiih-‘:?éIve.___V:zV3.?pt];)1icatioI1 before
proceeding V. aocept the plea of the
pefitionfiru was sent through his
bmther-‘terietv haflirmed the finding of the
Enquiry officer’ petitioner remained absent
…. 1997 to 17.10.1997 Without a
ve1td~ee1z.se. Labour court further held that the Enquiry
offieertwats figstitied in recording a finding that the petitioner
[did t1ottproctuce the prescription slip or the receipts for
x V’ “..fhA£a\?io_g ghuehased medicines for treatment of the alleged
– As regents the justification for the management to
” htittzpose the punishment of dismissal from service, the Labour
Court held that the past service record of the petitioner
M
-4-
disclosed unautliofised absence fiozze service ieadVinVg_1 ‘io
imposition of minor punishment on 1 1 occasions .«é;’:s–.
petitioner had made vaciilatoxy statements t11a_t..b,e V’ ”
treatxnent from an Ayurvedic oc{¢m:f b;ut« i£evej:I*t}1ev1ese_ T
adduced the evidence of Dr.»K._S1’iniv=ase;ia}1,, VV Wee’: e.”
Homeo’path, heid that the ease”Vp;:;t—forth Ia}; Iietitioner
was falee. The obse1″va1iox_1e ofe-Ifiieision of this
Court in the case of 1i)1\nsio: uAL ;'(Z3iZ)I$$T:I_’R¥’;.§1;’n1.’r_E2R, NWKRTC,
BAGALKCYI’ -rv- ‘R£’§§fi3}%AV;;AF}N1;§’_R:i;*\ KATTI, reported
i13.ILR 290 4i§é3’–a:1dAV’e;at}}f’ei¢ Apex com in mm-u
‘rRA.NsPo1_?1* §_:c)R_r5e’§e.§T1.c§N.. SARDAR SINGH zeporied in
2004 S€1CVVV'(}i;««?eS) in the circumstances being
.«vV.eppoei§§e,: i,e’oo’o2f…..Cx;urt declined to interfere with the
t _q1:ae3iztumv 91″. pmiiahment.
” ._ couznsei for the petitioner contends
ethat the “‘o;’eiriou$ sewice rendered by the petitioner from
H ” §.;98i:V’.”‘to 1995 was blemishless and that it was: only from
1995 on account of illness that the petitioner had to
“abstain from work, I am not impressed. by that submission.
” The faei that the petitioner in order to obtain leave on
,>«~\
‘ti
..5..
medical gmuncis was required. to produce medical. _
as prescribed in Appendix–[) to Ru1emS4» of _the:» anti”
having not done so, it cannot but V .’
was unauthorised. Having to
the petitioner remained unautiicxfiaefily was
visited with minor omeeioes it is
possible to conclude neg1i;£.éfié¢ on the
part of the Tihe petitioner who
claims that .01″ lack of knowledge
to estatj«1iS}Vi matefiais. The
Labour hez-xtegorical finding that the
petitioner piacecl 1A1Q»1i3-aé;te1*i,s:1 in support of his case but
* had *.taciBetOs3r–…«statements, I am of the considered
Ogifiian mat reasons, findings and conclusioxzgs arrivecl at
by are just and pmper, not calling far
‘ . Vinterfer.ei1ce.V
H V. _ “}’he writ petition is without merit and is, accordingly
‘ … ‘ ” rejgected.
Ln.
‘\
Sd/’E.
Iudge