THE I-l0N'BLE MR. JLISTKJE 'S.1§.' V
THE HON'BLE MR. Gowm
1 THE AS3IST'ANI'?; GEHERAL MANAGER
(ADM.N)'*BE{ARA"i'i-I. SRNCHAR menu L'l'D..
.om=*.:cE:.' oF'!z§§aE"c§E;NmI2A"m.:ANAGER
TELEcaa;naMu.n1c.m.oNs _--
_
2 THE TELECQM DESTRICT MANAGER
_ GUR'uw'ARPET
4;j "I'.I_L1m.A'm_
E]3E1,_QAuM'_5.. _____
--v.(B£YPI}i"ARE REPRESENTED BY
* . GENERAL !t.l..A.!~!.l\.f.3.|£R {.A...n.1.:~.I;.
0/1:, (3:.M.T.. BELGAUM-1) '
L... 'SF'? '.7 FLAP! V3.5.-.'.L".D, AD. .3
auto». 5 n 1 n I
T SMT BHARATHI S!-IIVANAND BADIGER
'.'.','0 LATE 8.? BE". {GER
R/O CHULARE SAVADATTI TALUK
BELGAUM DlS'I'RIC'I'
SINCE DECEASED BY THEIR LRS
1 SUSHMITHA ;
DIO SHIVANANDA BADIER
2 SAMBAV!
D10 SI-HVANANDA BADiC_1_E'R_
BUTHARE mmoges _
REPRESENTED .B'f~..CHANNAPP£. BADIGER " "
3,10 ggpzgga, R;IQ'Q!-!E_Jl_.fij§E % =
SAVADATTI mwx ° ' _
BELG_AUM_D!SrR!C<T=_ ' "
E E RESPONDENTS
TH!E’s.jiiii§i*:ijAF5FEAi)”‘iES .:ii’:”|’i’.’l”i’Jfi’flE}’VV'[‘ 4 OF’ THE KARIWFAKA
utgyjgfii :Apr|3j-nnri\::1’tai:¢Airz5i”- -:»~1’g:’.m~” A3199. T35 gggnn nnsanng
Ill \-I\Jl\-.l -!~’$\-II ‘4 I-V-III) l\-I lull-WI II I-‘ll\ Ill!-Z-lla-
IN THE wan’. PE€if:T10N’m§.EEs2459/03 DATED 05/0912007.
Tzlzss “=.*::=.?rr. coming on ma PR3
Hlggmzue. *r1s~:1sj”Dm,’ vmuueomux oowm J.. DELIVERED
1’HE r:oLuQw1NG:”‘ EEEEE
J’I’I’l’Ifln’H”I|’.I’l’
v.1{Jn;¢?S.P. Eaciigcr, was a casual maztioor under the
.. appéilaints. He along with others, had appmachod the
E’ Court – CGIT for relief. An award was passed in
their flavour by the corr on 21.6.1996 dimcung
\
\’/
K
lulu I.u.u:1uuut Iuvu nxuu
service but with only of uackwages. it
2. “”- ” –‘ “A4″”:fv”:”‘ _
1 116 L.’ “ximflsfiu qwfisu
appellants by filing” writ fi1e2_’_*Ia’t-‘1’_IZ”!’,= filed’
against 8.1′. Badigeij’«~waa«iifi{;1$.’1§;§;p3oo49/1’999. Said
writ petition along matters were
11:13.- learned Single
vlawamds were modified,
the appellants was set aside
.9 it vlrhasv Z the workmen are entitled to
” Llerieiit at continuity of service and
_ ‘aenefu u ‘t wiuluut ‘aacliwages. Inn
4.. ‘I… ……1:A.I….. 4.34.]
drdcrjiwasz’ lquestiuned by the appellants in Writ Appeal
as .Nue.’.7V5l4/ 1999 which was allowed. Challenging the said
9 Order, SLPs were filed. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
;-l.pp-=-..a.l. lllosilz-.9-124412001, by its deciaioti dated
\\
\/
/T’
nllnnrnd ‘I’ 9 id nnvvnnin ‘I’hn
O I ‘-1 m”‘”€’l
the Division Bench was set asideusnd = .
single Judge was restored. ” V;§;-13,
2.7.2001, Sri S.P.
implementation of the Hon’ble
111:-niluaruvu-1.’: (“1-use-vii’ _
LII-ll GI-LIG \.AJI.I.l lug Q-.I-I-Ill-Ill’-i.I.l ‘ V. p
learned Single’ Judge wirc of’ said SP.
Badiger. 2003 for issue of
dnecuonte lduie mmnams the writ petition i.e.,
appellants,’ __ case for appointment on
is-1 in-3-_-II at A-‘agnnl-In cs” ‘:90: sin’-us-I-u-I
I1′)-I.I.IlJH.BUai’5ufI«IGBI:\.I El ‘3-gll-I~.’~li’-P I-II VIIJUV \ll. \l\J§.I-II IJI. lI.\.t.I. LIDIJGIIII
Vifior reliefs. The said writ
passed away during the pendeney of
” writ her two minor children have come on
have the writ petition, through
A.i.”.«..:.._ ………….a_ .1 ..
. n 5
/’
.5.
3. Learned Singie Judge notiehgthed
s.1=>. Badiger had worked for 4 19 days whneiie he
and that he had succeeded
Judge in W.P.No.30049_/ e.fc’a1ld*’; have’: a
get the benefit re1neLétet.:;en., the
allowed me has ordered
payment; of Challenging
the said has filed.
4.: learned Advocate appearing for
the appellanteand the records.
counsel for the appellants
dd the learned Single Judge has issued the
“wit of am rule er law; that the
. penefit of the order passed by the Horfble Supreme
‘ Court on 31.3.2003 cannot be extended to the me of
the deceased casual mazdoor; that the claim in the writ
XV»
/.c
.5-
petition was only for appointment on
ground and when the
because of the writ
91-do-r-Inn nnvmenf nf Pa 0: I- 3 an it!”
‘ N am I-ll’-MIC’! V’ J W. -‘I. ‘ > ‘ 2’ at CT
unjustified.
R uni -In-p.. A-In’4ru|Vl5’n fhnf
u. 3.1′. Ba-“net W-3
“- llkllo IIGI.
a casual 2 V’ ts; that he had
worked__for’. was found to
be iiacgal Court and that an
awaxd «was xlfavour directing reinstatement
AA Sin5g’let’Judge passed the order i.e., 16.9.1999, ‘SJ’.
was alive. Since the matter was carried in wrlt
appeal and ultimately went up to the Hon’ble Supreme
Gout, Honble Supreme Court while setting aside
e.
/
.7.
1……
the order passed in wfit appeai nus
passed by the learned Single Judge, ‘clearly! ”
S.P. Badiger for reinstatement mom.-otor
of service. In View of his bofo;-oo1o o:oLt~.or oooo o
….e..!it.y, moooe the go
person. ‘”1″‘noug’n ifor
appointment. and she also
having oondoncy of the writ
minor daughters aged
auuut 9″ -mare’ *
. m’e , e<..w1ei.de.ri.r-.g %
2.5
pecuI1ar_ " "fsn%ct-so cie' Fumatnnom of the case, ieam
a sympathetic view, has ordered
d of oomponoouon of Rs.20.000/- by the
do Considering the peculiar facts and
d of the case and that two minor children
"' mrents, we do not find it appmprlate m
\
\/
/_.
-3-
interfere with the disetefion exefi'”‘ ‘” “‘””‘””V”‘[j””‘*”*”
Single Judge in ordering eompensatiofiof
only. Had Sri. S.P. Badiflfir vn” ‘*3
got the benefit of of: i’
ser-.-ice, en. in ‘.’l!.’..”.’.’ ef his .h.”e~ .1′ the
order ‘by the ‘ ping the order’ of
the Labour_ not get the
benefit matter was taken
up in not come by an end prior
nflinn
I-has ‘ as
\.-‘ IE-.4\-v.ll. fl.l.lI’Iu, I19 I’l’\II.I.l\a| .I.lw.I\.: bun.
‘Il-
“‘ 31%;: death.
benefitV’i”of’v1e§nstateinent, etc., or re-tren’ chment
claim made in the writ petition by
S.P. Badiger was ibr compassionate
it in view of the penur_v_. having hat the
ml’-I-I-In C5-ucu|”Ir 1-1l:C’.¢1’l! QIFIQ hllfl nlan
usufifi |..uv.”:’- Juluuy. nlunuoay, eusu unu nun-u
away during” the pendency of the writ petition.
Under these circumstances, learned Single Judge was
justified in directing payment’ of oompensation of
\
*4
-9-
Rs.20,000/’ – by the appciianta to the
ofS.P. Badigcr/Exv-mazdocr.
9. For the fomgoing nccccfia L?
we do not find any merit by the learned fcr writ appeal It is made as precedent, since the and circumstances of the - :3- :7 '-4 S-' Q... IQ (D;