%%%k%L%%Ma11¢s1{i '
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED: 25"' DAY 01: JULY 2008 j A
PRESENT
THE H()N'BLE MRJUSTICE V.vGOPA.LA_GOW_D.A. < T ;
AND
THE H()N'BLE MR.JI}STICL'?:Zs.ARALZ"iJVAG;?iR2XJ
W.A No. $2__1g;._;QS 7 k »
Between: 'V
The Assistant En"gi::ie¢r, :.
Zilla Panchaysit E;§;gifié6:3ing;--.L'j*'-- A'
Sub~Divisipp, V "
R.aich:zr. " T ...APPELLANT
(B_y :'§~tji-- B. J. "K;'dvocate [absent])
And:
s/gmppa,
Age; : ''P9_Iajor,A ' ~ .,
I RfoH,Ne.l:1'1¥45f52
.Mahafana Coiony,
« -. .ffj-..»_Rampur Hagar,
4. Raichug. " RESPONDENT
\’ (fiy Sri Praveen Kama: Raikete, ~– Advocata)
WA is flied axis. 4 af the Karnataka High Court Act against the
‘ érder dated H-4-2005 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.
8078/2005.
§N//
Thie W.A coming on for hearing before the Court this day,
Gopala Gowda, J, delivered the follewingz
JUDGMENT _
Leamed counsel for the appellants is absent. the
impugned order.
2. The learned single Judge decligafi :iwaVrd_. x
passed by the Labour Court in the ‘A ‘
workman. The Labour Court held ibe temgaeesi
was bad as there is wéolatiosiii of the Disputes
Act, 1948. It has directed jgieclined to order for
payment of b b ‘ »
3. remained absent before the Labour
Court aeétew jiisiifybflae temzzinatien of workman’ That apart,
aayard of the Labour Court was intimated way back in
writ petition was fiIed only in the year 2005
Vdespitebbhuebfaérgbiriggflze certified copy in the year 2004. Having regard to
. dei:£y i11behaJ}eng’r1g file award of the Labaour Cour’: and keeping in
ems oniy reinstatement is ordered denying back wages, the learned
V’ Judge rightly rejected the writ petition. The Labetzr Court has
% exercised the discretionary power and we agree with the view taken by
‘M//
3
the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is devoid csf merit-_and liable
to be dismissed. l l
«ii. Accordingly, the appeal is ll