IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BR4GAL,Qn'§§fiE':-. A BETWEEN: DATED THIS THE 26"" DAY or MAY, 2005: ' PRESENT) THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTICE DéEP;»2u§\£R§r.gg % % 2 A & THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIt3%F;=;'V"3AWfi;D~--3}iHI?*3 sm B T SUB%3&@§b*§ANYAM; Sf0SRI.L.THAKU_RNA1K;_ 4% . AGED Agaouraza ' RXAT post ;*::Hn< Joezaamg i DI:ST;BELL'.\_RY, , (Bar 391. V smx, .Aw;% %k'mE kr#!AN £§(§EMEuT or N E K RT c CENTR£9d_ OFFICE, SAREGE SADANA GULBARGA, REPRESENTED BY ITS * CHIEF mw OFFICER. "THE MANAGEMENT or NEKRTC BEUARY MVISION. REPRESENTED BY ITS SIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELLARY. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS
the Supreme Court, there was no basis for the Lancer
Court ta have directed reinstatement of the anpeiieintu
without backwages. It is against this order pa:;§~e¢g’_
learned Sindie Judge, the dismissed: tenducifier’_visfi$efere’.jusVi’-.A
in this writ apneei. ‘ J
3. Learned counsel .for___ the”.e_’nneilant”V”
that while setting aside the aveéasg’ passed’ 5theVfgLabour
Court, learned Single hes ,_ndt~1._r=er:n.rded any finding
in this ”
4;; 1Peir;isa_i__ef% th4e”~«irnnu_gned order passed by the
iearned $in;3’ie_ Jud_dei:.’shdw_s”tnat after discussing the facts
of the case as-:34, iihevreasons have been assigned for
esidexgf thieiiiefivard passed by the Labour Court.
fjee~ch and every finding has not been
conisidered the learned Single Judge, but, iookina to the
‘”–._’v’to:eiity.’etA«i:he facts and circumstancm of the case, iearnw
V’ Judae found that it was not a fit case where
.’%””‘:.’anneiiant shouid have been rewarded for his proved
‘ nmisconduct. It is also pertinent to mention here that it
‘fiWV§mf
(J1
was not a solitary case where he was caught. On eefiier
occasians aiso he was found guilty for such mieejan:®Ct,_’
and was punished as well. In facffithis was
misconduct committed as zonducfiar; V
management thought It fit to
in ear ca-regnlon rlghtiy se.
deserve to be rewarded? “mg without
backwaoes. f§£And;tii.at-<nt:»vL'§;a:;e interference is
made out. 'fnerits is dismissed.
35/
Iydge
Sé/EL
135$?