IN THE HIGH comm' OF KA:%NATA:{.é;" ' '- " '
CIRCUZT BENCH A'? DHARW~z'--'*sD--4.: A
DATED THIS THE W23 rm If¢££5;R'C5Ij{ 2.1009 'V T 1:'
3;E¥'ORE. T' " "
THE HONBLE MR.JL:"sT;cE §\J?I.' J;v(}L¥NJAi; '
WRIT PETITION Re..i%'%;sé2i;*.t;oo7(i;*r'm:2;A~
BETWEEN: " A' ' _ " '%
SR1 RV. KESHAVA RE}3'D?,- if *
3/0 39: R.V..Pa'>M§*A 1239:)?'
AGED Agouifr 3~;rv§:,ARs, '
EX~EMPL{)'YE§1 ~ 4- - "
NAT¥0NAL_SE[_ED coaptjfimcw' 015%: IEJQIA
BEI1,ARYABR3QAiZ,7§i,_R;*Q BBLLAE2 Y. .. .PETI'1'IGNER
(BY 1'39: 1*. I$sKS'Ef.t;§iK5.'P€';lT" REDDY AND
SM'? Y. A MALATH1' RE;pm__, "&D..'--*JS.}
AME}:
« 1"}~5'1*I«?;.I«:.:~:A'r10:~IAi;'éEE3s CORPORATIGN
_ :,*rD;.,%(;a, GOVT OF mam URDERTAKING}
"BEE; E-«HAv:;.N, xmsa coaapamx,
p:E%v"'a_$'1;a'i"1:0 :12,
A "imp. B'¥.'_'I'i'-{E cmzaagaw cum
Mag' {awe I)I§'¢'EC'i'O§._
2. 'f'zi~IE':REG£ONAL MANAGER,
,, AA ' _N'AT'IONAL SEEDS CORPORATON L'I'D.,
r _ _ £1'EGI{}NAL OFFICE, i-IEBEBNL, BANGALORE 24.
;3. THE AREA MANAGER,
NXIYONAL SEEDS CORP"ORA'I'ION LEMITEE3,
BELLARY BRANCH, §{.C.ROAD,
2-1, BELLARY. ...RESPQNDEN'I'S
(BY SR1. Is'1.S.NARAYAN, AEV. FOR RE AND 2. R43 SD.)
THIS PETITION is FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
09* THE CONSTITUTION 09* INDIA PRAYENG T0 QUA-Sf! THE
IMPUGNED ORDER' DATED 1:,/03/2904 pAssg1f>.. _TBf£g_THE
PRESIBING OP'FICER,,' PRL. LABOUEE coum', H.L:43_L.t"_"::§ '1s::::>
{$0.148/1998 V§D§} ANNEX D. AND DiREC'I' 4_
TO REINSPATE THE PETITIONER wrgfra AL1;"L"3'C)iESEQUE'§N'EIAL,
BENEFITS. V V _ 'V
THIS PETITZON COMING oN'11éfQ'R¥>téEL1ivi:.NAR,Y~. Hsiamzg
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, 'r:~m'c_:;1zr '1»z.At»:.«: Tr:'g€''FE>g:nLLQvJ1r¢e: . V *
0 Rui"). $ 33' L'
The petitioner passed
by tizf: to which the dispute is
dismissédg V.
~,_'._1'1'1e in brief are that the claim of the
I he was worifing in Bellary branch of
the r€;'$pi's ,
terminated on 91/02] 1990. Iiifxe .
petitioner fied writ peetiee béxere f
Court did not entertain T. however,
permitted the mfifioeer 5:9 before the
Labour is fled under
section 4193 ie.)_j_of 'Inii'ziF'$1fi:ie1"VVV'1i)ispute Act, 1947
Indeed, this court
had file dispute till 01/ 10/ 1998.
On the respondents entered
aed.._.__<30ntested the pmeeedings inter alia
' that the dispute is 3 stale claim and is
H " The Labour Court, further, having
xthe time extended by this court in the earlier
* petition, recorded a finding that the reference is in
Vgtime. Insofar as whether the petitioner had worked
' continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year,
it was of the Opinion that no documents w
; 4 :
forthcoming to Show that indeed the petitioner had
worked. Thus, according to the Labour Court,V.S_oction
25-F of the I.D.Act was not at all
dismissed the claim. As against which,
before this court.
4. The loamod A’ fo;?%ome%
petitioner submits that a of wouid
clearly disclose was to the
provviooiito’ a clwr indication that
he j’aro1*Vker1;_. for a period of 240 days.
5. I’i.~ no doubt true that the petitioner is
.LVA.Vsv=:1ui1′–..;*:’fi’o1’t to get back into the servims afiser ms
~. 1990. But however, the sympathy of
me ot be excendm to him, if he has failed to
” the statutory requirment that inasmusch as he
worked for 240 days in a calendar year Without any
A brcak. Indeed, the findmg recorded by the Labour
Court would clearly indicate that no material woo placed fl
/”
/
6. Having given my anxbus conside1féfi0:fi:;—-.I__
of the View that the award by ” ”
dues notwarrant irxmrference.
No merit. Rejected