IN THE HIGH mum op’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALo.1?’£: ‘–v
DATED mas THE 25*”! mm are’ NOVEMBER; _
BEFORE
THE HQNBLE MR. .;us*rIc:is:4A{.*3i);?M ~Ii\i?§’ ”
WRIT PETITION No.17tm :1
% BETWEEN:
SR; JAYASHANKARAPPA ‘
s/0 SRI SHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT SIYEARS H _ V
c/0 THE I>1t21~:s1DE§~:ra_ 1 A,
KSRTC STAFF’ as§evc:~,a_1?;ERs._UriIN A ‘ ‘V
MYSORE QIVISEON 5: ~ « _
BANNrMs;NrAPT’:飧:*,r>,V?~!¥s£:iie atgzsyo 015
‘ 4 ‘ _ ‘ __ PE’m’IONER
(By SMT.MA§i.}L!._LA’ mg}
– MYSO§€E {:25/1310:»:
-,_ ms<:;mE" 1-
RESPONIZEENT
{B3} 81%’: G R RAMACHANDRAPPA, ADV.)
‘¥’HIS WP. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2’26 AND 227 (BF THE
~ « CON8TiTUTi0I’I OF’ INDiA, PRAYING TO; QUASH THE AWARD
91′. 2.3.2007 PASSED BY THE ENDUSPRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE
A
u
5|
IN REF.NO.142j2003, THE CERTIFIE8 cop’? 0F’.;’w’H:«:._:a_ iS?_ “A.
paonucgo AND MARKED AS ANX-D, BY WHICH THE ;.A_B”oU:;r_’ 1
comm HAS REJECTED THE cmm OF ‘rH§:…E%E1fmQNER, ” .,
WHICH is ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, ELLECEAL SAND C-€)N'{‘P?.A:RY”._V
TO THE PROVISIONS OF’ LDACT.
This Writ Petition c>o111;i;1;tg _o’1::.Vfor in
‘8’ group, this day, the Court. maiiagihe foflmnfing
c;:m’meI
The the award dated
Tribunal, Mysore (ibr
short true”A?r:é1bufiaiVj;’.%£;1%ReijTN§{; 542/03.
N Kulksarni, learned counsel
–,f€3I?~. &i€_ and Sxi GR. Ramachandrappa, Eeamm
féi’ fié.pondcnt and perused the writ papers.
= The Qhazgc is that on 17.2.1994, while the
was conducting the bus plying an the road from
“~4:VVVVf§!’3}s(>113 to Bcnkipura, the Chcckzing Squad had found that
« the petitioner had not issued tickets ho 10 passengers even
A
‘r.
5. In the light: of the contentions mpd by * K
counsel for the petitioner, a perusal of the M
the Tribunal would indiaate that th(:JTii3:s11:;1.€1i ha§ co;§;c–ito
the conclusion that the dc:-mastic ‘fair ”
pmpci. Even though the
further evidence, the Tfibqnai t(Z”>A”C3Ci»3{1$i::iCI’ the
nature of the finding Ofivacr with
rciferencc ho piatzed before it to
come to aé» fihethevf the report submitted
by the ciiquity of any perversity or ixot.
‘V 2111 this learned counsel for the
V. contend that the: Tribunal has
__ the same and has 00316 to its
V V’ _ ccmciizsioij the award does not call for infierfercnae.
V’ However, in my view, a perusal of the award wouid
=imdic:ate that the discussion is only in para 14 wherein the
VA ” ” Tribu11al refers to the evidence 01° MW1 and WW1 and
i
4:
thcreafler has mine to the conclusion that the _
imposed is justified. As already noticed, the» u
MW1, the same is with zegaztl to
enquiry. with reference to
Cacmrt would have to zmtioe Wwere
marked in the cnqtriry tojexa-am: ae Ai:dAvvwhcther
the Iepcm’: admits of any {er to whether
the punishmengfiv V. the same has
not beenvdvner 311:; mbjmx; ‘amaévaza dated 2.3.2007 in
its pres§£:,nt’– form _ nA efistamed and the same is
accordinglyVVi;1;ashed._ shall stand remitted to the
II}t?IuS.€é§§..’L’v1I”rI’I’ibUL’.I’Iéi3:,:@:i’}f§3OIE, ts?) IESHJI12 Rcf.No.I42/O3 and
with the matter fmm the stage of holding
to be fair and pmper that is in other
V V’ _ word S’to the report of the eI1qm1y’ amour in the light
” H ” the eiridenee tendered to come to a oouciusion with regard
“” iii}; of the Same keeping in new’ the above discussion.
1%
‘IV
With 1111:: above obsezvations and ‘
petition stands disposed ofwith no oficicfiég ” ‘V _