k HASSAN.
--. "OI;-I THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE CASE
AND QUASH THE AWARD DTD 8.1.10 IN I.D.NO.L 67/1997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, .v M
DATED THIS THE 2.-3RD DAY C)IfA'MVOC'{'(_).'£";.c£Ii§I.~ .,2I<)[1o% I _z
BEFOREIIIII I I I' II
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIc!«;_ I
WRIT PETITION No.29(I'7T'I7..I"OFf 2O1O_":[i;i-TI§R)III
1. SR1 R DASAPPA SHE'ITY , ,
S/O LATE SIR SHETTYA
AGED AI3OUIf 60
R/A sU(,.1G,IK.£;L.ROAD _ V .
FORT E. "
CHICKNIAOALIIR. _ " ' "
V I PETETIONER.
(By M/S SUBBARAQ62: CO';-ADVS.)
AND I I I I I
1. KARNA_'I'Ais:A §.=.'I'ATE ROAD TRANSPORT
'(2O:R__I=O%RATION._ ..... <4 .
_ "REPRESEN'I"ED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
1K.IEI_.4ROAD;.sHAN'I'INAGAR.
BANGALQ~RE--27
2. A -.fI*HE~ DNISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC; HASSAN DIVISION,
RESPONDENTS.
“ITHIS PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
M
M2,-
ON THE FILE OF’ THE HON’BLE LAE»{}URfvpCOUR’f,O_’ ‘
CFHKMAGALUR (MARKED AT ANNfE3X!H)«T() ‘l’.;I~l.E”
OF’ DENiAL or 50% OF BACK As T£i’E
SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS _ ERRORS w%r+::Cr«1’~ ARE
APPAREINT FORM THE FACE O1§”T1giE RE-CORD,
THIS PETITION COMING FOR,» PRL.rlEARI_l§lG THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE _FOLL{)Wl’i\?G: ” ”
The depict that the
Petitioner conductor in the
respor1:dent’_A Corporation and
issued on 30.01.1989 alleging
that,;’he_along lcthver Colleagues abused the then
Thljirectorulllof the Corporation by using filthy
tried to Inanhandle him wile threatening
thelsaidl ‘o”f1″cer of dire Consequences in his chambers.
led.’ to a disciplinary proceedings and a report
.l holding the charges established followed by order dated
“‘3l9.199’7 dismissing the petitioner from service. That
order was challenged before the Labour Court,
Chikmagalur by invoking Section 10~4[A} of the
M
ICl3IIV
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whence it was
as I.D.No.67/199’? and the parties entered H
filed their respective claim and”””c’ount’er .;stat.ernenrts7,
whereafter the Labour Court passed_zan ‘~
31.12.1998 holding the eaqu.:rytasVVl”‘f§iif” and
proper following an
award dated l3.v09.200:0_ The
petitioner, aggfierted the award, filed a
writ petition: Judge, by order
dated award, directed
reinstatve’r:re’rit The respondent —
Public’ ~ _ Transport Corporation filed
V. when rejected by order dated
carried the matter to the Apex Court in
_ Civil. Appeal’ No.24l4– 15/ 2008 whence the proceeding
rerrranded for fresh consideration by order dated
On remand, a learned Single Judge, by order
0 ‘dated 27.08.2009 quashed the order on validity of the
0. domestic enquiry and the award recording a finding that
M
-5-
3. I am afrald, the contention of .
Counsel does not merit aeceptahjee
observations of the Apex Cohort. in
EDUCATION 8: RESEZARCI-I,__4_l: RAJ
KUMAR1 following’ léiireoedents namely
HINDUSTAN ‘IfI;~é EMPLOYEES
(1979 (2)§,l?Ai{ooB vs. K.S.
Vltiia6.ii:iaSet?4V77), PGI or ME. &
V. vs. SOMA
{C.A.No.i2Ei58/1’9fi£3’tC§}’,OF’ ME. & RESEARCH,
VINOD KRISHAN SHARMA
(cg; 1’2éii1,/:1ai92) Afio RATAN SINGH vs. UNION or
“iND’1A” (eié§9,??( iscc 396} which reads thus:
‘ he High Court did not find any error
oryerroneous assumption of jurisdiction in
{the matter of declaration of payment of back
‘ Nlwages. While the normal rule is payment of
back wages in its entirety, the High Court
while recording the normal rule has failed to
‘ <2<.}<.m 2 see 54 bd\
-6-
notice any error apparent with the 1’€aSC__I21i1Igi.: V”
of the Tribunal in the matteryof
restricted back wages.
perversity or being earroneodus or not
accordance with law ‘shall hav.e’~t’o be
recorded with reasons assaii the
finding of the Court.
It is not for theVAI~iigh*V.Cou.rt into the
factual oi’._t11’ernatter’:.’and..V:there is an
existirig Court to that
h.o=.v.ever the finding of
fact is -‘misappreciation of
evidence, ‘be deemed to be an
error of law vvhicvhdcan be corrected by a writ
jbfi__certiorari;-. _____ The finding of the Labour
A _VCo:urt–.cannot be chailenged in a proceeding
i’_f1″a:””writx.C’Voi”certiorari on the ground that the
A»…4__Vreievan:’tAC and material evidence adduced
before the Labour Court was insufficient or
it “uinadequate though, however, perversity of
“the order would warrant intervention of the
High Court.
Payment of back wages having a
discretionary element involved in it has to be
M
dealt with, in the facts and circumstan—fies
each case and no straight~ja_(‘.lge_t_ for:’nui’a:ca.ri”» ,
be evolved, though, hoiyever..g.fiv
statutory sanction to dir_ect payn’ient otiback
wages in its entirety. he decisiongin
amtter of back wgages,..iri:’the’–._.instant.._case,
was taken by V _gI§ab2our having
regard to the facts of the
matter of its
discre’tion«._ ” a _manner which
can.not”~b’uti1–:;be nature. There
e)s<;ist_s. anf~o'b_1:igation~,v_on the part of the High
Court" to the judgment, the
reasoning befodrxed denouncing a judgment of
}inferior"–tribuna1, in the absence of which,
it judgment cannot stand the scrutiny of
go being reasonable."
regard to the aforesaid observations and
it in mind the fact that the Labour Court
— exercised its discretion in the matter of awarding 50%
Hbuackwages not shown to suffer from malafides or
iiiegality, in my opinion, does not call for judicial review.
M
-8-
Writ petition being without rngafit i$””’ariC:_Qrding1y4L_” ‘* 2
rejected.