The Divisional Controller vs Riyazmiyan S/O Hannusab on 31 August, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA T T

DATED THIS THE 316? DAY OF AUGUy5%"3i;'.";'3;'€5.T3§  _

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEv;'ANANtD 
WRIT PETITION No.s:és7.3 olfzbae 
BETWEEN  .' :

THE DIVISIONAL coN1'*R014L:?;R%g.»' ;  "

N E K R T c, BIDAR DIv1si.oN,'j* :

BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFECER' _ . ._ 
  -    PETITIONER

(BY SR1  ;     V

£_&_.N....Q

RIYAZMIYAN S;*O«._HANNU'SAB I

AGE:     

occ:  R_/O,.\/'EI,LAGE/POST NAVADGI

KAMMAR c~HINcHQL1, TALUK BHALKI,

DIS'1?.'BIDAR =  '

   V'  .....  ...RESPONDEN'l'
"(BY"SRI'-SANJAY M JOSHI, ADV}

  PE'fI'ITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND227  THE CONSTI'I'UTEON OF INDIA PRAYING FOR

_ QUASHENGV  AWARD 'ANNEXURE--F' D'I':O2.02.2009 IN
=_K1D No.46/08 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LABOUR COURT.

This petition coming on for final hearing this day,

  t}:1é Court made the following:





adjudication, has held» that though the enquiry was fair
and proper, the dismissal from service according to the

Labour Court, was disproportionate to the misconduct

and directed that the respondent' 'he"«._reinAistated'rand

accordingly, has quashed the orderliof

this, which is under chalienigag’. ‘

3. The 1eaz’ned:’€1_ounse1’Vi petitioner, while
pointing out the the part of the
respondent,:_”véft2:-ifid seek ‘1°ei.i.ance on a decision
of the KOMATSU LTD” VS.

N. ,1 224, wherein the
Suprerrn;Court.’aitercoiisidering the ratio as laid down

in ‘line of V c’as_es’1 relating to absenteeism, has held that

to the settled principle of law that Courts

were “11o_t,._ji,1;stified in directing reinstatement while

seti;i.ng5p aside orders of termination on the basis of

absenteeism, any direction to reinstate delinquent

workmen who had been found guilty of absenteeism, is

not sustainable in iaw.

4 The learned Counsel for the respondent,’,onthe

other hand, would seek to justify the

Labour Court and would plead that ..

respondent may be considered

that, reasonabie punishment imposeciykas

extreme punishment of yirarranted
and in this regard, on a decision of
the Supreme (3-onrt in PRADESH
STATE ANOTHER VS.

However, it is seen
from = the question that arose for

consideration, tliereinwjaras Whether the Courts were

in backmwages to the respondent

‘ therein:an’dl:Whether the salary paid to the respondent

from December 1991 to February 1992

shotiidfiigxeladjusted and accordingly, had directed such