BETWEEN:
.5'-Iassan Dist'r_i::t."-I , V.
VVS..P,ESiTaII*:!<¢:éIr, Senior Counsei for
.'.VS'3'.:f"'Shi:3fT'['LlEV Hameed, Adv.)
VlT%1..eb'E4)i\JiEionaE Contreiier,
4*.VK':S.'R.'T.C.,
ChijCEN'0vEMBE--P;I;~_.2ci:o-_ E' 1'
PREsENT_ E E E
THE HON'BLE MRS. 3U~'STI._CE iVvI'AN'jL|LACFiAEL1,LJVlR:3
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A_."r"«.E,,.v_VENUGOPALA GOWDA
REVIEW PE'jTI_TIIo N; 'A7"/2_010
IN WRIT APPEAL3'N'{)';$:Z?9t3}52GQ€i'E:(L'¥}{Sfi"FC.)..:A/W
MISC.CVL.NO.1iV3i?"O_fZ'U33__Q, 1.371/2010
xw.::>. L.1--».'$.9J,V2/'2€).1.Qf
Sri S.B.Rama!ingapp'a, *
S/o. late Baszgppa, " V
Age:d"about._f4'8 yeVar:;_, .....
R/atW.AgrahaEfa ES<tfen_S'é«Qn,
Banavafa :POst, 'Arsikenjé -Taluk,
PETITIONER
(common in RP & Misc.C\/is)
Chickmagalur.
RESPONDENT
(common in RP & E'/Eisc.CvEs)
-wiocument. E
This review petition is fiied under Or_d.er_ 4.7'R.Liie 1 or,
CPC, praying for review of the..~orc|.er dated"i-L20.1...2OI'f)
passed in WA3796/2009, on the} fi|e...ofj,t'§'1e'i§-io.n"'i:z,iie_d High'
Court of Karnataka, Bangaiore. ' i A' .. "
Misc.Cvi. No.11370/2o1_o:"'ia_ri~i.ed dndef,._%ection 5 of
the Limitation Act, pra'y~E..ng for con<;;Eona.tion of 'delay of 154
days in filing the review. petition; id ' '
Misc.CvI. iao.113.7~1,i2oi1ooi.girii"ad_ Order 41 Ruie
27 r/w S€Ct:i.G'f'i'i._1'5l=;Df§C?C,'~.p'i'Ei"/.ifigj'fOi' production of
additional .
isiffiied under Section 151
of CPC',"hpirayi::ig fciir"'disp'e-nsati_o'n'of production of certified
copy of the or--tier_'dateid'"20.~1..201O and accept the xerox
copv ofcthe same*.Jj~.V
_Thisi"pet'ition with Misc.Cvis. coming on for
orders', VENUGQPALA GOWDA, J. made the foiiowing:
ORDER
Mi.sCc5C_v.i:;.11370/2010 is for condonation of delay of
154 in fiiing the review petition.
Misc.CvI.11371/2010 is for production of additional
is
/”
fair and proper. Considering the materials__o:’n-..,.record, the__V'”~
Labour Court held that, the manhaigiement’.iwajis
dismissing the petitioner,_ frorri'”–service;,.’:”Petitio’her*».,
questioned the said award bviiiifiiiiing the_wriit.’-ipetiétioin. The
learned Single Judge .d’ii:i..’_not«”f’i’n1d i-it_a,’pi’p.ropriaté to interfere
in the matter and as at petition was
dismissed. 3-rifvjht-§l’iiie_i1g,i4riig izthe ‘award and order, the
petitioner iivl.ed–the writ» which was considered and
dismistsed The petitioner questioned the
said ordlers in The petitioner having
prayed ._for:withd’rawVal of the SLP, leave having been
having been dismissed as withdrawn, has
A fi ,thiiVs”‘ir,eivi.e’uw:”petition.
T The petitioner met with a motor vehicie accident
Vi ‘{if’*oni”9,3.2000 and filed MVC 139/2001 in MACT at Kadur,
wherein, an award was passed in his favour. The
petitioner refers to the said incident to be the cause for the
absence from duty. According to the petitioner, the non
F/i
,1
consideration of the award has resulted in
orders and hence, the petition is required to”‘bve..:ctori’sid’eVredu. ‘*
S. We have perused the “award -:passed_”Mh\/C«
139/2001 dated 10.11.2.003. It sh’ow’s._that,.>’ot_he’petiti4o’rier’–..e
had taken treatment Kadur and at
Nanjappa hospiteai, an inpatient for
about 12 ci;a’y’:;.«.._ 2
” 4′ issued articies of charge
dated 13,g4.20ioo2it~.aiisegmg that, the petitioner has
renieined unau’t’i’ior_i_s.edly absent from 27.02.2000, despite
‘ cVai’!._no–t_i_’ce ‘sent.._to report to duty. Petitioner did not report
f”0r”d’uty” more than one year and was dismissed from
sert}ice”‘Von’23.05.2001. The period of treatment for the
a<:c*ident was 12 days only. The absence was from
22§7.2;2000. The accident occurred only on 9.3.2000 and
0' wthe petitioner took treatment for 12 days. The period prior
to accident and iong after the treatment period has not
been explained. E
///Q
. r
.-'
is no error apparent on the face of the recoré..'to
judgment passed on 20.01.2010.
..
10. Since there is no_e_rror he-p;5arent,o–‘:fr.the fa*ce’of”a
the record, the review petiti’o»n:”‘i§s unt’e.na’t3!-e afliaéd hence,
stands rejected.
There is_S4ri’:f….1.nee:C1 for”‘condori–i’iig__.3:whe delay, since the
review petition is u nten_a”oiire
a:The_ jdispfised off accordingly.
Séfiv
E3509
S&f% ~
je3§@