High Court Karnataka High Court

The Divisional Controller vs Sri P Kailasam on 22 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri P Kailasam on 22 October, 2008
Author: H N Das


_- M –~…..m……. -nnwfl uvulu ur nmmamlm -rum»: scum” as KARNATAKA men COURT OF KAMMAKA MGM coun

E’? “mm mari $903′: 0? Kammrmm, BANGAL§§1RE:VV: V ”

3Z3&’E”E§} Ti-ES Tm: 22% my my mmaaa

SEEM T X
Tm Hsi}I=?’3§.«E mmmcm I~3;1a,1i.a;<'.::4:s.1:»1z§Qsz-I mg

BE EP¥:~ »
31$ amszmaz, cgmmmfi .; V
I€3R”§’fi,, MVARAGEM; & L
E¥fiV.&H2%GERE,_ %%%%
K$R’FI: aamwmammg _
K.§§fi§za.éa, %
Bazmsmafi 27,; % %

A PETTTIONER

{av am: ,3
ARE:-~ V A A

1 smfsmaamm
sgawmm

_ I3A¥a$rm*E.%E:J £.m:3tIT,

§§’!URAL

2 A ..La;%-.*v.;%$<g%s*::j%g:;1§:*:* £fi1\@m8I€*I~i'ER,
CEzf}§éT'RfiLLH§G AIIIT-I€'3RITY,
mafia smwmasw,

Qfifi fififi- fi.

ow”

-urrnwfi ?__..,”. nnuuunannm ruuri uuum Ur KAKNATAKA HIGH €C3i.3R3′ OF KARNATAKA HIGH CQURF OF §€AWM&TfizKA Hi6-H (SOUR

3 :31s:m’1Y CQ2kfl!dZISSOHiER mam V ifj’

AH§%UfiEAUHKmflZ

Emma swsmm .ac:.T,
RE_fi§G§AL~I,

BEAVfiH;

ammmmwa RQAD, BmwcmLo1e£:., A

F5%smNaEri Ts

gs’; gm: 3 3 mxsrm, 1=’£;:e7»a:;
ms @929, Is ifflnmé 226 & 227
my firm :2 To mass

m fiR1§ER?’=,DT. mx-a, ETC.

Ar$z:.V§z’p1t:®’ um’ ;syhaarmg’ nah
izhg thév f$Zim\vviz1g;.

GEDER

V A ‘ €?f%i_§Ls§<':;£t pewican, the pafi'&::2zm* has prayed £232." a
ai mziomx: as quash the arder dam
waged by tm 3rd. reapmnclent app-mint:
ms pay the yatuity amum: to t'ne fiat

WA,

–_– —— -M-mu ..,….mm.m nnun MUUMKI W mmmmm mm comm or amnmmm mm mam 05 mmnmm mm-E cow

zmpammai ‘G32′ E31511′ 1% Hm’ z:om1éer’ afinn 36 H

acrfiumremtlamdbyhim.

2. firm first raspmndmx

pefifianer ca:-pamzam Z on

31.:a.2r2£;3. at am mm at fegpondexxt,
the pefminner mm and
otlmr re%*ame21t” the firs’:
respaxfiant ” rmpondent
Cnnfinflfig in paymant at”

yaaxity ‘V Autfmrity wide ocrder
H “” fixe pefitmxusm ta pay 8. sum of

fi 53:: gratuity ammznt.

§i::rA1[‘::im*, the appellataa authorigr clirwmd
‘ Zta pay the difimmnce in gmmity amcnxxat
af 3% ysars uaf aearvkze rwxdewd by tbs fiat

V , V _ V’ gm, §-Iencze flaw’ writ petifinn by the Corporahon.’

flux/’

vw —»mA-A _.\w: …-…….m.»-«W-. mun «..e..mm ur EKAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT C)? KARNATAKA HIGH COUR? mm §mnNA?m<A men com:

3.; Ifiré fl an both the

}’§*&t”l.1s&€i§ke&$i1’$¥VI’i3:p&p6r8.

4.. It ia 11-36.: in dispute

the firat rfipexfient an
mm it ?m we in dispute the
a$r§vmes mm and he
mwetl an on

3.a.1a2.ga:::=;.3. amount,
the pmianm=a«t§au¢ ~pe«:-ind tram 9610.196?
ix: n1ns.1§?; he has not worked for

dtzm ‘ that pans’ (1..

_ 5.. A It :53 poaitzmn (sf law that the burden’: of

thgtfiéwvrhad fir mam than 266 days in a yaar
:13 an tbs frat rwpmndma In the fitant:
gmt xmpnndgm dgpwed b%ra the Contrnlhng”

firm’: has was appc1n;ted’ rm E§5.1CL196′? as daily”

Wagmfi ha warlm mars than 24%} days in aa yw: upto

IV

(j’\f\4

197;, mm; the amt mpandm has disc1wW ‘

human as!’ pmmng” that has wr:rr},:s:fi*fi:rf_ V

2443 days» in a gym baa-rm \\

pe.tia%tme3,”s Wm are the cm;3ky$rVar§”‘i1 pa s,s:’§isi§i1

t riacmnmztm to

39% gm me
flaacuwnm 1961
m 19?: m}a:i:zg’ :’s:?~at mpomimt.

“§%ere was to produce
an émcxzzawfizs Shoe The
have mi gmdmaa af ewu:3.enx:e’ available

€’fi?i:’~&&w”%’s¢ “”” H emce has ta be drawn awn’ t

‘ E13’-rt the appeflante autlzwrity

riglitizz mmdga tlaat. thsc am-im rendered by the

uunnnumammm FMWJFI MWMRI In?!” WKKWMEHKR HIWH

‘ ‘W 1’. fimm 55.1&.,195′? 1:: 01.05.1971 is has he

far the- pllrmtz: at calculatmg me

‘I Vwiwlfllwu ‘V10?!

V ‘ V _ 43%’ gatixiign cam Emptxgned ardar page-ad by the

was

autwritgr is in aawrdanae with law and I find

-v-I-n-I vau-

rm jufitfiahls grzaum ts intarfem with t.’r1¢ mm.

,-\,3”

W

C)
fi /3 1&5 pafitian in lamb}: raajwhaci with” n<;i'ij'nr} «
$3 tfi . .

  55/.    %
Iudge~--   
dil*

.3300 mm”: $_.z

_» 1515.5: