',_ 'pi'z§ying to qgxash :;2s_aswn-d dated 34.12.2905 in ma 2422063 by me Labour
, .2: * }r::;s.2wri'i 'i:-mien coming on for heating this day, tixe Court made em
7--_foIlesidng;.: _
Cami Chikmagaiur in ID 24 s 2093 on 24.12.2005.
1N 'IE3; HIGH COURT OF I<.ARNA'l'Ai< A A1' BANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd day ofJ'uly, 2889
Before
?Ir'IEHON'BLE MRJUSTIC1? IIULUVADI G T' '
Writ Petition 8623 xzewafgz 1:-4.; .:
Sn' H Ramcgowda Sfo Hanumegowda
38 yrs, Rfa A Hoshalii, Koppaiu " .
Anavara Pest, Hassan Tatnk & District '= . _ Fctitioncr E
(By Ms Law Ina, Adv.)
And'
1 Directogmzs
39, Cm1i1;ingI3asi11vIV{(ia£EV(.1fitr2§s"'2V_TV
Bangalore.560 052 V ' "
2 Ms Madhu cfafiw M :.,23~.2_»
39, R:xa_d'Cross
,__Ba1<{g_$i101'F_SsS{) 052 " 22222 Respucmcient
(B9312 fit: for R1~2)
'1az£s§"11vri£'2¥5:2a¢§a§"ss filed mm A.rt.226i22'? of thc Constitutian
§
ORDER
V In this petition, petitioner is assailing the awarci passed by the Labour
Aflemg nefizsal of ernpleymeni, workman raised a dispute V
Labour Com. It is stated, petitioner joined the services of the u
during 1997 and he was appointed as 3 Cflfllpmiy-‘fifisistaxlt
Rs.4,00(}x’- salary. The stand taken by the n:ana:’i’ge:n§§at” he
workman within the definition of S.2(‘s)_of
Disputes Act. Afier hearing me parties in fl2¢V_di§put_e’
cama to the conclusion that the difipziiis .i§i_m-,1::;V However,
proceeding fimher, Labour Count I.f’;,sg,a:t flint the
employee was Working ag 4 –» 5 assistants
to him and on merits€.aii4:g However, that aspect could be recomiderm.
I» It) the learned counsel for the petitioner, although he was
;.ggid~ of Rs.4,00{}z’-, mm Wm no such dasignation given and no
u i ‘i ‘ V \ is placed to show mat he was working in a managerial or supemztisory
BR,
capacity and as such, he must be treated as a wcxkman and suitable.
compensation ought to have been awarded. Since that has been jj –1~
merits as well as on maintainability, the matter could be further <
the Labour Court came to the cenclusion that the petitiizgner V. V , T f
theme was scope for adjudication ef the matter on merits. . it
Be that as ii may. It is not in disgiute petitiiiiiet:
five years and for having put in service of entitied for
gratuity for the said gwried evjen continued.
However, since wrong to, the maszagement,
petitioner eeuld assuming that if the
petitioner wenld authority and on
merits it could be “‘u1tiinetety tnaaiiéiigement could be made liabie to
pay the wouidiie order of reinstatement.
V . Vfieweeegrie put to liiigatien and also noting that he has put in
and there was refixsai of ernpioyment, necessariiy
i’«petit’ieiieriv.<–.i)e compensated eitherbefoie this Court er some other
2 it i ciremnstanees, in addition to gatuity, petitioner could be paid
'same eempensation. W'
