1
in THE HIGH comzcr or KARNATAKA AT V
mm» mxs rim 27m DAY or 1«*EBRUAR&f«:état)é
PRESENT
1*:-z.=:. Ho:n"BLE MILJUSTICE
TI-IE I-ION'BLE
wnrr APPEAL No;"i'i.48';',2i€){)$(:IV}§;:=I¥.S ié!TC}
BETWEEN:
The iDivisionaI;.("3(3i2tri911£;r ' V
& Discipnnmysxxmomy. 'A
Ka1natakaV.S%1:at¢Roa{i£::,; _ "
'I'1"ansport_Co1*pci*e3$,.i:i.(2_Ii;« . % ' « ' - .
Central Division,' _ '
Subash Nagazj,' _ . ~ '
Bangaiore-560'-OV09 V
Represe1;tt:d_by its ., _ V' '
v.ChjefL,;:1i� Qfiiccr, -----
"K.S;R...TfC., "c¢m:ra1
o:"1ices," E{,H..__Read,'
:3ou%b1e-T'Roa-d;.V%,%
' V V Bangal9fe--27 ,' ' ~ A . ..Appcliar1t
~ "(By Sri.Viswanath, Adv. for
M/ s Viswanath Assta, Advs.)
V. . Prasaxma,
S f G' ' Sri. Shankarappa,
'Resident of at Post-
'xwlalasandra, Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District. ...Respondent
(By Sri Lakshman Rae Adv.)
\n/
This Writ Appeal is filed under Sec.4 of the
Kamataka High Court Act: praying to set aside the order
passed in Writ Petition No.50 1 3,/2005 dated 13.6.2008.
This ‘W.A coming on for Orders along with
I.A..’2/()8 this day, Gopala Gowds.,J., delive1*edVV.thde..
foliowlngz –
JUDGDENT
The correctness of the order ofetheo .’SingI4’_ ‘
dudge not afiirming the conteI:ifiotis” it
regarding justification of the oi’der._%of
by the disciplinary authority fliisvgwrit
appeal
2. atteritietiwias by the learned counsel
for the “to:Vthe~-jszaztious facts which was dealt
‘ in its award passed in ID
:_afEet’:adjudication of the existing industrial
the parties, after answering the
pi’eii:n1’na” {yin ‘i_ssi}.e regarding validity of domestic enquiry
by the disciplinary authoxity before passing
aside o1?dei* of dismissal against the appellant, the Labour
‘V V has answered the same in the afiirmative in
favour of the Corporation holding that domestic enquiry
conducted by the disciplinary authority of the
Corporation is held that the same is in a e with
KSRTC Servants (C 8:. D) Regulation, 1971
compliance with the principles of natural justice;
Labour Court in exercise of its power under Seofionilefl 1 ”
of the industrial disputes Act, hereinafter eeeeee
LI). Act has referred to the charge
sheet at paragraph-7 of the aW§§j*:1″it__
the questions and reply gjijien with
reference to Ex.M5 and V finding of
fact holding that tlfgexfe were”.2T2 feavelfing in
the bus and it has not
made out .3; among them were
not issuelcvl ~–wae not accepted by the
Labour on Ex.M 14 to 23. This
f”v1I1ding_c}f fact -. eceepted by the learned Single
l’eruegeAiae1dil?§g lliat the order of dismissal is set aside by
theexercise of its power under Sec. 1 1A
if the IE) Aet’ exercise of its original jurisdiction and
H ..tIne.t there is no merit in the writ petition and
dismissed the writ mtition. We have
perused the fmdmg of fact: recorded by the
Labour Court: while answering the contentious point
framed by it regarding justifieation of the order of
\x/
dismissal passed by the discipiinary Authority on
appreciation of evidence on record, which is penri.iss§l§ie.;’ ”
in law as held by the Apex Court in ‘
workmen of Firestone Vs. Maiiageiiiexmv of [_
reported in MR 1973 so 1227, w111i’ch”fiI1dirigs.’of
are concurred with by the
impugned order after in
the writ petition by reasons.
Therefore, we hqldilgat Single
Judge is Hence, we are in
respectfu; i ‘taicen by the learned
Single Juege which dew not cal}
for our i111c1fe1ence._ i.f1″‘eRxercise of its appellate
pm%er.- ….. .. *
‘ ,3″. –. is dismissed as the same is
sd/-
s Sr./ck
Iuége