IN1}HEHHH{COURT(fl?KARNATAKA
(HRCUYFBENCHJMFGULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJITJ " M'
WRIT PETITION NO. 191334 or.
BETWEEN _ A
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N.W.K.R.'l'.C., --
BIJAPUR DIVIsIoN,*If7f _ , I
BIJAPUR.
[BY SRI SUBIIASTI I
ANDI
SURYAKANT, 1 ' « .
s/0 MADDAPPA KU'I'AI'~J_U'R,
MAJOR, occt; EX,+CQNDUcT0R,
R/(3.; SIIIVANAQI',
= _ TQ.__ DIST. BIJAPUR,
,0,/To K.G_. KOTWAL.
/'
" BAVWADI,
CR.QSSV.RC.)4AD, BIJAPUR. ...RESPONDEN'1'
(BY SRI__ E3ANJAY M JOSHI, ADV.)
*******
ix}
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. praying to call for the
records on the file of the Labour Court Bijapur. in
respect of Ref.7/O3 vide Annexure A and etc.,
This petition coming on for preliminarj/;’=–
‘B’ group this day, the Court made the fo11ovv’i-ng:-j
onnsg
The respondent was as the’
establishment of petitioner at ‘He remained
absent without kiei”-rriission from
11ti1997to_cjg1x19sf”i¢wi6r;tp¢had_of1i9 days
Thus illvvere initiated. In the
disciplinaryCproeeedingsithe charges leveled against the
responderit_l_4 and hence he was
dismissed front-the____scrvice. A dispute was raised and
nfiatter “avas__referred to the Labour Court. Before the
Labour support of their respective contentions
bothllltheipetitioner as well as respondent have adduced
A Vfdjevide-nce. During the course of evidence it was pointed
Li.)
out that the respondent was suffering from tubereuioses
and was justifiably absent from to
07.10.1997. T he said illness is supported _
and the certificate. The Labour Court _
the evidence let in has
reinstated with continuity.of.__ser\ii’t:e”and
benefits. But however, has meiaimant
is not entitled for the said order
the Corporationis befor”ev»thisV 1’ it
havinggregardv Vt0″”-the,_seri’o.u’s’nature of the misconduct
inasmuchastihvexhaserernpained absent for a period of 1 19
daysfigand for period of 127 days between
27.05.1997 the Labour Court was not
juu-stifieddin”.”reiAnVstating the respondent.
up i3z.”.—be-arned counsel for the respondent supports
a.i’th_Ve’»«inpipugned order. He submits that the fact that the
%
respondent. was suffering from tuberculoses has not
been seriously questioning by the petitioner.
4. I have perused the impugned ilorder.
Apparently, explanation is
absenteeism of the respondent for a
since he was suffering from
supported by the eviden.ee__. aslliyhell
Certificate. In so far as 127 . 1997 to
27.5.1997 is Coneern_ed_it1 that the
Corporation itself has absenteeism.
Henoe__I arn oi”‘lt.he:VielWthat question of interference with
the impugned order does not arise. It is no doubt true
learned’ ‘1:-ou__n__Asyel for the petitioner vehemently
‘ a deterrent earning ought to have been
issuedl l from withholding of backwages but
hovfreveij having regard to the fact that the respondent
wassuffering from tuberculoses his absenteeism is ifi
?/’ ‘
,_.f”/
M’ ‘
fortified by the documents. I do not find any merit in
this writ petition. Petition stands 1’e}e(:tecf.
S&;t* tt
YKL/ —