High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K Raju S/O. Krishnappa Reddy vs Mysore Paper Mills Ltd on 11 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K Raju S/O. Krishnappa Reddy vs Mysore Paper Mills Ltd on 11 June, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh


1!! mm men comm’ or-‘ mnmmm AT x
mm» rm ms 3 pm pm or j; T %

BEFOREW

ma: HONBLE xmmsncm rzunxméujzj 5

sm K RAJU, st 0. mt:-:rn¢fm=-A REDDY
aGEI.)ABQU’l’52YEAR3 _
3 CRO.7m1I,V.ELEC3I¥2lI’;AL–_ % A’
Bnannavawurismcja ursuzssmyjk
PRE3EHTY.Y_.RE8*iflIH€§’.’A’1’»UJJAR3?lIRA,

PAPER Eflkmfivfififl 577301
SI-ELgEOG’KDIS’I’E§iCT’~».’.”‘ ..PETfl1ONER

(By ADVOCATE)

W» New-u mmvm-oooaPuA»e wu-mrnwmaw Wm awmm&wm!mflM wxwm wumaw EN” fl5’KNfl§’fl§%. kiiffiw

Pmanwwfi
BADR.AVfi’1’I’
mmma

j%%”%%WPREf-3 BY X
wmasmapmncmn .. RESPONDEHT

sfimnc RAVI, mmmm)

Writ Petition filed undo: Articles 2% and :27

j cf India praying to quash the award
Labour Court in 11312 Ho.112)’03 alt. 23.8.2008
lirmax-V3111 the arziaaw 111:. 2.1.%% in IIJR No. 12IO3 ms

W,

mwm wwunfi WE” wwflflwmammm. WEWW mamm W? WAKNMYAKR NEG” CWWKY Q? Kfiaflwfiyflfifi Hifiw QQEW

pm’ Am-T passed by the Labour

C mflm.

‘B’ gmup this day. thecourt V

The pcfltbner has ooughtffi’
passed by an ms:

xo.112 orrzoos dam: dated

02.m.2ooa in Annaxure-“.l’
and for Nwh

2. peamamnt employae of

the joinad the mm in

1934, he in the eleclrhl mam

of had comp-ktad 18 yarn of aervica

: V’ A charge-uhaet was issued -rm

Emmi ‘¢ll9′”%¥hI'”Wkf’k¢”‘V. if

_ a mm wheel valve of 15 mm Dh. was
A lunch box what: it was checked at the
V V’ gate while he was goixg out afiaar completion af
duty. ‘The defence of the pean’nm- was that he mm

W

E mmmz w\awwnwm2uw..ns mm. mung-m..w.nu.. .. M

Q
x
@
Q
g
§
x

blend’ is

,…..,m «…w-Wm gm mwwmammxmawm muww m..w-mm WW Wamwimammw wtwfl awmwm war wmmmumm Wfliifi CQMEYE” WW

an order com:-& the order of

. Hawethi: pefinn.

pewcmrtheLabourCour1:V to

thevnrinan
on an that the mum of
was ‘value in the m box to

V’ ‘ ‘mm befam the High Courtand
was due fior promotion and than:

‘ bemmtha ma Ra.)nsha1I:ar’ and the

V ‘ was tin tacficn so played by Rfiqmlnlmr and %
% Anand and the petifioner was inmomt of the

a1bagadofi?exne.Infi1’nmgu-dnnn-pfiodtxctkanaftlw
‘WW,

mum of one Rqjanhahr is stated to have

nnplnn’ t the manual’ in the t:.fin’ ban: of

Tim has not been carmidered:-b3*’t!:u:_ m

mhmrriage ofjuafice.

9. In the mmsmm
COI2PC)RA’I’;€.}$g AND crrmns
reported an Apex Court has
new of the workman
tbs Court cannot

utxlastituia-git: and direct :1-einsianixewantz.

18 yaara of service and he» was due

A % Rajanhalmr for pa-omomn and the ram
of Rajuhahr was 3. Iacurity guard has

– …_.. ‘…….-……5_ «-.V..«. mmmwmamm»-a wawra uwunn war” mmmwmnflnn mfiww mwwm U2″ fififiwflifififl HEGW :.;wum” U?’ Kfl§€Mfl”¥&K& Mifivfl QQWK’

V

the inquiring authority and the Labour Court and

such the said deeisian in not applicable: to the

ha nd. {fags /§§_»g,,,,£,v,V_ ..

gm, ,.€-,5,–c.W.g I=»~»–5~®’5a

10. In the normal mum it
am talcum would he In
would be doéazbd by the xngzch
«meme when
when he had 13 and that there
was no a ‘brass vulva of

been aooqmd and non-

_ If this was consumed by an
% tmpeumwaum not lune boenvictimhed.

“””°5’*”°”””$*’W””W *’|’t%’%u|H’6fl’ ‘hI50″VOW’Ifl5’V$’\I¢’W U%U”‘1Iufi’%.%WJ?Wafifl”‘fal’3n&I”‘§S $’aTH§’&&WHEfi ‘fi$€§\$ ‘ ‘ ‘ – ..
‘fin €%nW”%§l’£”!a[£Wa£P’%£M””¢fNn»i'”% KIIWHKII Mniflhflflfi WW5 h’VW’|I’iI\l”‘i¥£dP”‘itWkW””la 3§K¥Wi’V€5% Wufilflfiflfl Vwflfi W’%&'”‘9.B’\EViol”‘Ioifi”‘§s¥%dY”‘& ‘s’&FH’c%’&’lk VNIWWUJIKW

W