-1-
IN THE HIGH coum' op KARNATAKA AT v N
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY op MARCE "
PRESENT""-4t im"" "'"
THE HON'BLE MR. Jus'r1cE.i's:1§ ;3ANLN1t,A1§Iu?iA*fI{;:%\/ f C
1 MANAGEMENT GF' _ V ,
M/S;'YUKEN" 11~1p1A--1,;:'p:.... " . '-
WHITE P11E;:,D Ro'A,D,'-3 ._
3
BANGALORE ' 560. .066
1REPRESEi'€"I"F.AD' BY'--1'_I'S---- 'SECRETARY
S. ANTONY CRUZ." » "
- * 4 ...APPELLAN'I'
(Bjf SR1, s.;~i. r.qLjR*I*HY;' SR. COUNSEL)
. SRI_jd__SANEERAPPA
A SE/0 LHFE SR1 ERANAGAPPA
AGED" ABOUT 55 YEARS
.. R'_.{O MADHU NILAYA HOODY
WHITE FIELD ROAD
" BANGALORE 560 048
' RESPONDENT
” 5(I3Y SR1. s B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.)
-3-
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 or THEAV.1;£§s§§:;é?rgL’K5
HIGH coum’ ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE Q.;2DE1§”PA’ssTi§:–n’
IN THE’. wan’ PETITION NO.17285,!2005 DATED..3Q}”9?f’2Q05.
‘1’!-IIS WRIT APPEAL comma frvoogi A.PR-ELEMIIMRY
. rn, Av DA “‘5 ‘f.
HEARENG, JHES Dru, onNI’v’.’JRMA’FH LL, DEi,J’y”‘:.*.-RED—-4 FHPJ;
FOLLOWING: __
gupgfigxr
Thong the mot£ér_ pcys£éd_’Lfof’adm-ission, as the
.. .1. 3…. ………._.;…..;.. ………Q..L’ ..”~;’ 1 9-.
“II. ‘~ 1:5 xgxlumjuw yvfltni ‘(.116 “*”I’1S6I’it Of
counsel on taken up for final
– «is filed by the management
being {foe observations of the learned
«Judge offiofagraph 9 in the impugned order
‘3 In order to understand the dispute in brief,
39 neflnt ri .5
m Lho __fl_wmg facts:
-3-
Respondent was working as an
Officer and on the alleged misconduct of’ K
-I”-31″: r~a1’I11′
o . V
I’, .
fl-.-I-I-ll-I-ll-I16 D21 1414 VI I.’-I. .I.’|.IA.n.ln’ ‘ \l uILln_ ma ‘
after enquiry. The workman raised’w.industriai disjoii’teV.’*V.r
The Labour Court on coneideiing the’. Wplacedwd
before it, set aside taenm.ar¢rmut-muonand ordered
reinstatement ‘ accepting the
2″ “.. _ ‘ ‘3. f 1′” ~ . ‘-
award, the ‘L153 Q51 .;_.,.,.«…,…~…..n under S-fl.ion
3
3
5
‘3’
*3
3;
2
33-C(‘2’) Vtiie;”A:’induatIwa:Ti Act (for short ‘the
Act’) notional-‘.vpromoflon and benefits arising
out of bite} As’ t!ie”%:said”«apfilication, came to be rejected,
the; ‘worlcrnan V_V_abpro«aehed this Court in Writ Petition
, on Cnnuidarafinn Of ‘H13 enhre
relying upon the pronouncement of the
I
in the case of ML. Corpn. qf Delhi 0/:
at Result .9. another reported in [1995 up LLJ
the learned Singe Judge held that the scope of
-4-
and the Labour Court cannot determine
the entitlement of the ela1mant_’_s.o1aim »
recognition by the employer as
writ petition. It is to
3a_”rp”e I-“nab tnnrirrnnn I’11I” ‘ {‘n1Ifi’ in
Appeal No.2Q5Si’20(;)’i%. be dismissed on
31.1.2008. _ ioanagement also
chanerlged order at paragraph 9 of
the Single Judge inter
cal-ha V .l’\’;”I’|i’P .-tn. Qinnin .I’Iu-Inn {-
E1111 1. \.uu1§.I.15 usmb .l._u.u.I«l5.A”‘l.lVa’.flal».lJn\.l\-I. uulaua Uuuuu llll-I-ll\-I I-I.Il=lI-
there wasno eo impugned order of the Labour
” _ inn ciisinissirag the application, nevertheless,
V error in setting aside the order of the
hour’ which was to the eifect of non-entitlement
nan’. I-1-¢nAn”c1u-un-5–:1:-cu-4-n–u -pun–n I-._..-naafli-1-.
1 ‘lip ‘UV J’-I.I-.I I 1′) ll-IKJI-I.I\Jla-I-‘JIIIII. I.-E1153-II-fin
-5-
4. It is submitted by Sri. S.N.
senior counsel appearing for the _
+1-\n+ bu 1»-‘min muffin
u aahi
_y u.u.s’.) :Iu|.u.u.g ucuue 31′ +1″: fir’ 1″” H13
I…I-I\.J ,.I.l.II.\.I.I.IJe;’ -‘I_-\I
of disrnissai of the writ petition ietairen *’
practically, the writ petition been aim-ed.
5. On order of the
learned Sixigle ciudgge the learned
counsel on finding and the
direction aside the observations
-de ._t1’1c:_ mfizftai”; oi’ ‘r’n-entitlement of the ‘
m
wor1_nnan”‘<for benefits are contradictory to
'~ _ flndi1*g:3"upholdiI1g the order of the Labour
the application under Section 33-C(2)
this is clearly contradictory in nature,
1……” 11
.. ……… 1….
uppculiluwuc ucd” ‘1’.
Ifiu
Accordingly, while maintaining the earlier
‘ ___5portion of the order at paragraphs 1 to 8, we set aside
.é””‘
-5-
the finding at paragraph 9 of the order of
Single Judge dated 30.7.2007.
The appeal stands Viabeire modification. 'bb_