W.P.NO.7000/2006 -1- ll THE HIGH OOURT OF' KARHATAKA AT BAHGALORE DATED THIS THE 1673 DAY OF JULY 2008 BEFORE um I-l0ll'BLE nm..ms11cs H.G.RAll£8l! . B T : WRIT 1=>E'rmoN No.7ooo¢m (L-TEli'._l.,:4_: ' D' 1 THE MANAGEMENT OF' M/S NIRM;§'FHi"Kf3ND!§£--._EA . «. " I-"'.E.S. COLLEGE oz? ENGINEERING COMPOUND ' A _ MANDYA _ BY ITS PROJECT MANAGER _ PETITIONER (BY SR; H C'. SHIVARAMU. A--:§v.1 1 MPRAKAS}-I s/0 :vL§DA1AH.,_' ' MA.JOR'*.__< ' _ _ D.uQ.162'r,_ I.§3RO'.3S, HALAHALLI ---------- RESPONDENT
113?” 9-RI”A?’%I§_; ADV.
. -;-OE w~::§VpPA’r£L~~as PATEL.)
‘firms WW-F*D’PETm0N FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
s: 227 OE— ‘I’HE ccinsrmmon OP’ ENDEA PRAYENG TO QUASH
_ _ ‘i’HE AWARD*D’T. 25.3.05 IN ID.NO.21’7/98 VIBE ANN–C on THE
‘ “=,”F1LE 05* THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR comm,
4 M’i’»SOR’EAINCLUDING PAYMENT 0%’ COST.
PE’i’i’i’ION COMING ON FOR FWAL HEARING, THIS
if;EY_,§ ‘1’!-IE covm’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.NO.7000/2006
-2-
OEDQE
This writ pefition by the management is
against the award dated 26.03.2005 ”
passed by the Labour Court, % 1 1 V
No.21′?/1998 partly allowing the ‘1
the respondent under SectionV.iQ__(4-A)” “the
Disputes Act, 1947, as Km aka
Act’). By the impugned tee Court: has
held that the of the
x*esponder:.t–~V.v d7 irected for his
rei12state1 n.e1it’_ wifii’ ‘
2. I oormsel appearing for
“the and AA the impugned award at
the record of the Labour Court.
As from the record, the respondent had
any document to show that he was
as a workman by the petitioner –
h iagement. The case of the petitioner – management
Wye
W.P.NO.7000l2006
was that the respondent was a Mason and he
given work whenever the petitioner – ”
would get construction work. Prime faciefl 3 T
contention of the management xi
View of the two documents
the Labour Court such as EX.
M-2 —= voucher. Howevez;,._”th_e
who produced thesaid of the
management. for cross.
examinafion Hence, the
Labour the aforesaid two
docun’.1ents.é _ As »– de.-grlier. no document was
2 by the” in support of his claim
V. as a workman by the petitioner
2 — show that he had worked with
{hem 1990 & 1993. The Labour Court,
to the evidmice, has held that the
forth by the respondent was probable.
neyrd to the facts of the case” and in the
>§\9’w/
W.P.NO.’7000/2006
-4-
interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to
the impugned award and remit the matter__i:o-t _
Labour Court for reoonsideration in _
law, with liberty to the petitioner A
namely Naresh, who was examitioo as” MW51,
examination.
3. In View of the above,’ tltbfttie ordcrr:
i) the imgaogffiod 35 sa¢.asm, the
matte? ihetabour Court,
Myzeoro,’ in accordance
mm la_i§f;”*” court is directed to
disposeof expeditiously and
in ‘V six months from the
V of reoeipgproducflon of a copy of this
be t ‘,
are at liberty to adduoe
if any, but strictly within
tfifitiime to be gamed by the Labour Court;
‘ ootmsel on both sides submit that
they will keep their clients present before
the Labour Court, Mysore on 10*
my
W.P.N0.7000/2006
..5_
September 2008 without may further noticg
directed to call this matter on H
September 2008.
Petition disposed of.
hkh/Ata