IN THE HIGH coum" 01? KARNATAKA AT « "
DATED THIS THE 218'? DAY OF;PéQVI5M_£§Vé}i§"
BEFORE A %
THE HONBLE MR. JUS'1'§.QE As
WRIT' PETITION_ NO. 5
BETWEEN :
S2213NMAHEs}§A'f;;.L,}"
AGED ABOUT.4'5'Y__EA_R.i_§ " A
s/<3 N:r~;<3EG:s_'r2::;c:'r = %
V' % PETITIONER
" «gay H-TC sHwA:éA5a'u;'ADv.}
Afim. '
THE 1§:v:s§QNAL CONTROLLER
'I-'HE MANAGEMEN? or
" :{.s.s:.T.C.."MYs0RE amazon
'£,3AhzN:§e;aNrAP ROAD
__ -m%s<':)RE 5'20 915
RESPONDENT
{By MISS SPHLPA K.S. ADV. FOR SR1 N K RAMESH)
TH!S WRIT PE’E’I’I’ION [S FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
227 OF THE CONSTITLWION OF’ INDIA. WITH A PRAYER’*TO;
QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 23.12.2004 PASSED BY
THE msouse mum’ AT mvsores IN 11:) No.122/99 vzrnsabsx’-‘-.
D AND ALSO QUASH VEDE ANX~A; 21112201′ THE RESPO¥;iD_ENT_
TO REINS’I’A’1’E THE PETITIONER BACK mro saw-1cEA’mr:m”——.T ~
c0N’r1:~:u’m op’ sag-vxcs xncwxamc; ®,C_>’.”l-KER u
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEWTS. INCLUDHIG,ffiJLL–‘BAt”3§{“WACiES, ‘
mom THE DATE 09* REMvA1,”1*1LL« ‘_THE-;’ DATE. “op
RE§.NS’I’A’I’EMENT, UNDER ms mcms Ar;:*o%.c:RcuMs’rA2§c:Es:g
OF THE CASE.
This Writ Pefiiian oomingjona rorVhca’n;;g, flay,
Court made the foilowing :
f
The in qucsfion the award tiataed
.i1;___I«.&I.D.No.122/99. By the said awavsti,
%”%._Vth¢”z.abaur.% has dismissed the petition filed by the
p¢aam: 10(4-A) ofthe i.D.Act.
V’ n the lcazrned counsel for the parties and
the writ papers.
J?
r
r
3. The pefitioner was worrkzing as a b
homing token No..125 in the
mspondcnt is said to have abséfii
and as such the petitioner was ‘the
C-orporatiolta vidc order “‘ti§_;§;cd to be
aggrieved by the same, ‘A the Labour
Court. The the claim put
forth by ,Court on oonsidefing
the rival, the application. The
pefifi0n¢’;:r,_ is = Court assailing the said
award.
.A of that awazd would indicate that the
sesgjénaeiaiimargagémeaat had urged before the Labour Court
V . that ‘he “—fnéfificncr had rammed umautborisedly absent
u onwaztia It. was fuzther contended that even
instances fmm 37.7.1993’ to 8.9.1997 had
T “r-zémained absent and thereafter also on two other occasions,
” Vhfi was unauthorismily absent for a pcfiod cf 82 days and 54
i
(v.
days respectively. The Labour Court on noticigfg ‘
contentions and the said dates had. ‘A a
respondent had remained unauthizfisédlj zibséfiii
present instance: and aiso on etiriiaag’ occasions. A
5. As against the: send’ dbniention “pu«f T£’rti1′:§ by the
management and the finciiiags the Court,
the petitioner oantcnds tl3at’flA;e Ififas at that time
suffeting fimn stpmacki ac1ie ” az1_¢i_f’as such he was
undcI”gc.:-E_zA1g £11: year 199? and as such
during thé though he was irregular
he made 1:ti$~,?:1; c:#t efforts to «discharge his duties. It is
fiufiezj the fact that the petitioner had joined the
1992 and til: the year 1997 then: was 110
V V’ _ (:om153ain.$s’e3f’«:’i1:c1autI3o;i2ncd absence or any other nature is to
while bolting to this aspect of the matter
, the limited period when he was tmauthcrrisedly
VA abércnt and that was due to serious i.1l–hea}th .
J2
6. In this regaxti, the Labour Couxt has noticed.-.___fl1e
action by the respo11dent«manage:t11e;ut £i3_V:ic¥w_’
nature of the evidence tendexed through MW} ‘
end” ence tendered flzmugll WW1. Since’ ‘
has been noticed, to that extent
cmxtmations, it cannot be the 5&3
cued in the matter. However, zeqgims. is
that the Labour Cotnrf ire;-3 _ ._cenaide1ed the
oontcntioirsa (xi “”t}”:.-ifizion on the aspect as to
whethcriflze’ was commensurate to
the natu1*eV of_VMtine ” Therefore, to the sald’
, have to consider this aspect of the
out as to whether the punishment of
or as no whether the Ieiief requires to
-vbe other manner.
A, j 7.. nothing this aspect of the matter, the fact
VA petitioner was in sersrioe from the years’ 1992 is not
:,’i;;__éEispute. Even as per the allegation of the respondents,
L
‘:1
the petitioner thcugh was unautboriscdly abscfii’ Qfi V’
earlier occasion, the same had started ‘
anwaxds. In this regard, the
contention with regard to his
duning the said period. aég had
not got the have the Medical
Certificate, whens. vIi0i’.i(::£-” V ” by the
management. before the
res,po13dc13t:3…TT’1′;3».1;e3;»«:ii=:; older dated 4.6.1999
which ‘Via, to the petition.
Considering sfibwquenfly, he has produced the
_ that had mmailized absent due to
‘:_Vilh§e;=_=5V, a%§;¥c%aai; ‘i{>___thc extent of providing an opporturzity to
and reform himseif, the same should
— V havc”.4B3¢I}:§.>OIi%ide1’e:d.
In this rcgmd, I am of the new’ that even if the
VT drticr of dismissal is interfered and if an cipportuility is
3 gmnted to the: petitioner to mftsazm hixnscif, this. Court: should
é
a
‘VI
also mice into consideration the izatcrast of “,
respondent-Corporatricm 5:) that they should not ”
Wh1Ie’ this Court is exweising its disxzxweztéail V
I 1-A of the I.D.AcL Therefore,
by the Labour (301111: in ‘bf
the View that the saint, ‘calls 3 the
proportionality of the cfzinsidezved.
9. 23.12.2004 to the
sand’ VV’G;Jhseqnenfly, the carrier dated
4.6.1999 ?.)yVV1l1_<§'zfc's;'1:;é;ndent-management also stands
Th€ 'I'£#$pQ'fldE}1t[CDrp0I'ati0fi are thcrcfozc
the petitioner into service to the pest
at the three of his dismissal on
V .I*"id;uvcvcr, it is made char that the Pfifitiancr
'_nc: f cntitked to any backwages or oonscqttcnfial
Further the period fmm 6.2.1999 i.e., the date on
'T % 'whiéh he had remained unauthsmisedly absent ran the date
u "on which this petition was presented before this Court
L
i.c., 9.1.2006 shall not be Iwkonw liar
cantinuity of sczvzoe" since the ¢xc'Vi"uM:§i611*
substituted punishment.
With the ahovtgr …Vmoei..i’hca”” dmuoné and
clarification” 5;, the petition’. V _’ no order
as to costs.
301/’9:
Iudgi