High Court Karnataka High Court

The Management Of Ksrtc vs L M Pinjar on 17 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Ksrtc vs L M Pinjar on 17 March, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE mam COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGA1,0R3:':' ~ E f   

Dated thisthe 17" day ermarch, 2099 

Before   '

my IIONBLE MR JUSHCE 1grn%;.::s' - st;  "
Writ Petition 5020 /  {L -'xsa:§*c)%%j 

Beltway:

Management of KSRTC

Datvzttlgere Division --# I31?' i¥.3_   .  V
Divisionai Controller  w ' '
Davazngene 1

fl ' V ' Petitioner
{By Sri S N       I

Ami'  ....  __  V     

Sr; 1, M Pirzjar  fiiieéhabgégéafi'  :7 " « 4' 

EX-Conductor, Rf0":»'%_124g9i'1 _ ' " 

3"" Crass, Bharathi Cdimay' - 
fgajvangara « ;.f>?7 €331 "  ¢ V Respondent

“(By ém:.;~;ia;g§::av:«s’:iuu:mn; Adv.)

.*;1;i’s’%«\xr’ri§’:i¢:§1£eon is filed under a:.22(>:’227 cf the Cmmimtien

fa:-aging :o5’«:;ua.«::zé ‘:iw’awa:d {iaied 5.2.2004 in KID 14.51999 by the Labour
% Hum u

A ” Petifitm ccm1i:ng on for hearing this day; the Ccurt made

” ._’ fulibvséng:

ORBER

Petition is by the management KSRTC seeking for quashing the

” award passed by the Laban: com, Huhii in Km 1451999 on 6.2.2(}{}-4,

W

that {he Gnder 0f dismissa} passed is dispmposticnate Ii} the charges levfiled
and aecordingly, ordered for reinsiatemeni. The Labour Court has reijed

npazn the dextision in the case of Management of Gzznaptzflzi Ens Service Vs

Presifing ogicer, Labcmr Cont”: _. 259,: Lab.1c::463:w1§eAr¢in» ;};._’:he”saia__’ ‘ 5

case: the respendent Conductor hart} not isfiued tickets ‘H1 26

Aiapiying flue ratio mid éc-wt: in the said case, Coufi thcéyiesv
that the brder of the disciplinary ‘i%:iii’§T’;’£IiI’ifj”_.-* .§Vl’ the of

dzismissai is £00 harsh. _ f ‘ __
Petitionefs ceunsei, hasfeiied’i:;5ora.V:he’si§§cision’. i:.1 K’SR}”C’ V3: 8 S

Huilzlkaifi – AIR 28$} u<§'f""f'are by cenduator
flat as many as grass misaimducfl
negligence or di.s}:1xone_;te¥:.;TA it rfasultg in financia} 1955 is the
Corporation and ef the Labour Court setting
aside the erdxfa ={)f: reinstatement £3 not proper,
h9i9%%§'ér; ifiia céin23"ider§Vi«i§§ati"ii1ve twenty years of service put in by the

werkxriaxyf 'mréer of reinstatement as the wcrkman had

ht'§i3}V)?.'«f3t1!}1Ia'l}i.ial_i t'$§ZJ!'?iI!:§' of the proceedings, with retirement benefits

— ‘?{_if}t.Q1It backfisages. 99/