High Court Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer Pwd vs Sri G S Kumar S/O C S Gundapa on 15 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Executive Engineer Pwd vs Sri G S Kumar S/O C S Gundapa on 15 January, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
am ma H§GH scum as KARMATAKA AT BANGALORE 
GATES Ti-£33 THE '3 SW SAY 0? JANUARY 208$ V '
8§F€3RE Q L n

THE HONBLE £u%R.JUST§{3E suaggsa 3.:'-'*;$§.-- .i:    .

 

8E'¥'WEE¥\E:

1. The Executive Engmeer,
Pubiic Works fiepartment. 
No.1, Buéissing Division, '
K. R. Circia,
BANGALQRE-560 001.

2. The Asst. Exe<:ut§!:a'£r1_g§ne¥ar. . 
Pubiic Works Departréaent... I   
No.4, 8:.:i£di:1g::'Su§e_'-'r.1i\;r:s§'r.~.gzrz, VL 
5<.R.Ci¥c¥e.   ;j_ '   .. " 

SAN(§ALC)Fi"r'1~56{) 00?;   ..PET£Tl0.NERS

(By Sri. .:agadeesn- Mu5§%a:§;_j$a:%%'kjg%  %
AND: ' '   

Sr}. G. S. K.as.'ina¥;'~

Age: i'-.'!.ajer,~. ' f .  A.

819;. E. S»; «£3um:_4,aga,- .4 .

Rfa. fai_r::.'i  {EWS).».ii"St:3ge,
KHB c'c1_cn'g,%.   

 V V AABasa=!eshw*aranag3%,'i. _ A
 BAf=3GAi.C}F3--E-553 55:79. .. RESPONQENT

-woo-nu--no

'    $a*£%§yanarayazsa, Adv. fa: GER)

"   This Wzét Pefifian Ea filed under A:t§c!es 228 8. 227 of the
   Cdnstéfiutéon of india praying to wit asfia the award éated 1*' Aprii, 25023
in Ref.' Na.45l'¥986 passed by the Principal Laban: Ceurt, Bangaiora

" «._ ¥J§§.e. Amt»-A, etc.

This Petiticn coming on for Fiéaa! Hearérzg we éay, the Court made
the foiiowing:



 "=..E¥':g§neé;A,fiféfékalia stating $132'. the respendent was an
. .j gzr: p:%.€;3{ee ;2z:2' e §};; ova tempomry basis, PAID is nat an industry and
'._'_fv':'.as.'A:%*s'é;"'_ $éa€a§d that in case §é¥'f%;3{)?3!'}' empmyment, as right is

V' V--'%Je$7€éd ii; wetkmen far :'e*én$tateme::t.

.3-

9.3.9.53
This Writ Patfifion is by the Siaia against fihe award dafed $5:

Apr?! 2004 in Ref.Nc,45119% on the file of 
Eangaiore.  .      V

2. Respondent ---- wogkman Vsoug1§':i;__ f::'§ rV_A'z?vefe':':;f2_::Az'¢e'v  

di$pute aad the State Geve£nméhi–v:.L:’L:’b;:» itg a;der j'{ia2′:£*é.§éi”””3§?’
September 39% referred the d§$.pute..fi<n 95320 xaghether
the refusal of empicyment tea 22.5.1985 is
gléstand proper. : _. V' "

3. Befare’ti§§… f;;:_§:rt_,V11?%Ve:%iesp~:aVVV§ ‘§’2.5.1985 is in vielatéen of Secticn

25*? pf thgrg ~§lr:§§L§str§a! ‘BEs’pL.a:t_e$ Act (‘Act’ for smart}.

f_ ‘V V Thgisfidiiicigim petifiien was apposed by the Execaitéve

-3-

5.

Befem the Labour Ceurt, the Assistant Executive

Engineer was examined as MN-‘% ans the workman was examined

aa ‘.§\.!’s’*é»1a On behaéf cf the State, twa ciecuments *.»*e{§r%;/~:;:.::>r’Gfi~z.’;V%§j’e”<3'

':.e., Ex,M'€ series and M2. 9:: baehaffBf":%x§"–«.3*s$»f5¥f;ffs$:f§_ _::*§
dscuments were pmduced. i J T» A. V

8. Lamar Court cbserving
empisyment ta the respond%5§%\/Ahas”‘A5§{‘~exam’ifiéd t2y the
atate and hesd that, the res;3o;f’:;<:i_1§'s'A:tV '§%s11'VV'§:=§:t§ti;c'-§:évAA–»fg3_::}1 :'e¥nstatement
with cantimsity of ser2{f'§c'é;;;1T. A1'~V V

?. Learnéé§5V the respondent -~
warkman sub§fiit;e§* worked far 249 days
cen£im.:e:2s%y yea} under Secfien 25-»F sf the
Act, his ¥'8$'§'i§3'»."§§ §$ <,:,v%:f:f:ra;'fy Aft: gection 254'. and entitie to seek
s'év§;:;_1:s.*;'i'ate;rVr'z':'§;zt ééijd fiaeégfe a2§'£i5%"éeq::ent§a! beaefits.

'-"__%.S':'§;;}aQa£i£eVs;ésh Mundargi, iearned Gmsemmergt

"2:5:pa a':'§r§§ Afe: the petitiener — State submétteé that, in

V A ' 5:-e_ _e}§<. keiéief against the State. State shouid be made as a
the Labaur Court He submééted that, §n case of
empsoyment, a éaily wage empieyee has ne right ta

reénstaéement er empieyment beyand the tempafary period.

a .

C . ,
r”;’?:-7″&i~i~’

workfiflfin fa to estabiisiz by necessary evidence that

‘ fwiarkédfsr 240 days csntinaeusly in a year. i find fiom the

‘V Labour Court has net considered and has not
. The csnciusien is ac: suppezted by ‘me reascns.

« tH’e.n1<:e. in my epénéan the matter requirea recenséderatéont

He aésc szmmétted {hat the FWD is not an industry and despite

taking specific csntentian before the Labeur Court, Labcur C,a;;_.:rt

has net given any finding an 'she said éssue. He

that, there is a huge deéay of 6 years in ra§$;?%A§ the Aeéaféiefi;

9. Lamzz: Court cams: mec:!7ta:”:§’a!.§j,:r ;3A.ass baVj,%2″.é’§¥.c’f;*aé”c£’v.’:*;.A!’?’v
a dismste is yaisea, it has ta find out”V*6*«§ “*£9,’ vséhaa.V1ére:.V-éhéiiéééujes
invoived in the said désnute a::d: “:}.}ust_«’lfi¥¥§:%é: eff sash issue.
%n this case, 32.33% because the p;§:%$éA;;V,’ rg.;?.’j§}zv$A.Aéj’empioyment its
the tespendent, has;§*::3*:1,£%ear§= exa:éé’§né#;:: ¢an.z§_§f be a gfeund is
hold me: the r%*ght to reinstatemeai
and othe: ccnfsééaérfééaé this, State has raised

3 cantenflen tfistf ii: is nai ia§éj~§%£da:§iw«::=.!%thin the meaning of Sectian

2(3) 9! the z%!+.::.£.L Ffifihfir %b;1e{é”-§s “$i deéay of 6 years in raising the
d:§é;§{2’tfi.AV :~!…C3§f.i=ii’a’¥.i¥’QGUF{ §fi5i.i§d have ccsnsédered whether the

a§sp’a;st§e”;*e:é%’%3.-‘ j:.%$}_j.sn the date sf raising dispute and fuxther

-5′-

Aacsrdéngiy, the V’-£r§%. Petitéen is aliowed. The award

§FTi{)i.E§¥3$d da%e:..=%e én accerdance méth lvawi

mm’.