IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNAT}§kA::A'FV BANGALGREV ' _
DATED THIS THE 018'? DAXOF '::~.1;f«;CEMai:R.; .2063' M
BEFORE?' % %
THE H(}N'BLE M:2.:._ JL:s'ri<;":.éjA sA.13oPAN'NA"'V
WRIT l?'ETiTIQ£5i. Vfig. 2oQé%;L'2TER)
WW " Af %
:mé1f:*V P!§,'T§TI{§§*J__ :'Nnf32¢9 1 [_:2(}O4(L--TER)
BETWEEN}
THE MANAGINE: z2iRI::s:;'z'o'12 'A
ADARSI3 mm £NS'£'FW_.. ITE
" '*ia.r"»-»~«.w'. _
PEENYA INDL. AREA
BANGALORE -- 560 058
2 THE DIRECTGR * ' *
D!REC'§'ORA'I'E OF KANNADA AN!) CULTURE... _ '
NRUPATHUNGA 20:51:; ._ ; "
BANGALORE - 560 002
(BY skms. NAIK,AI)V. FOR C/R '
SR! JAGADEESF-i MUNDARGI, A(3A_ 012 £2-23'-. «_ AT "
This Writ Petition is fixed' I1i?d1"-if Ar;£iéi£:3 226 65 227 of the
Constitution of India Praying -Ito; "i;te£sf':_.~..t1ic..}a.wf.r;;--1It:l passed in
l.¥3.No.?/ 1997 dated.8.3.2{}04 vid§avAr1:)§;x_11:'eV~jC, .
E': E!' gal
BETWEEN 3 4' '
SMT Mji.-. saméhm' ~
_._W'/G S453} MID. APFAEAH ____
13xGED-A3{';3_UT 39 YEARS
'~.R/ANG. 34-G .
1 BANG:%._LOi§~E'-«V560 058
'SMETHA A'¥*AA§e':f:v:3'Nrs
zsr.cz:;-ass-, mama-c;owm
pxssma mm;
.. PE'B'I'1'JNER
a V' * :;s2.11.v.é§ NAIR, ADV.)
THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTGRATE OF KANNADAANDCULTURE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE -- 560 002
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ADARSH FILM INSTITU'I'E
NO. 39, NETHAJI ROAD
CLEVALAND TOWN
BANGALORE ~-- 560 005
(BY SR1 JAGADEESH MUNDARGI, ACA F*.oR;R+2f
sre: av. SHASFRY, ADV; mg 3-2; '
This Writ Petition is flied uI1déi=.Ar*f._icles 226' 85 22'? of the
Canstitution of India Praying to; g-:1:::s§1rvii:!¢ Aiinexumn-A daied
8.3.2004 passed by the Of>urt.V Earsgalnre, by which the
Labour Court has denied 35% 3. the ':0 the petitioner
which is arbitrary, illegal and wntraryito.-t.hev--3¢héme of the Li).
Act, etc. .
Them been reserved for orders,
coming on for, p-ton.ou:1ct:ment this day, the Court
pronounrgede the foiiopjving : '
"I-11%: brief leading to the present case are that the
-. j;je1;ipI;)y<::t: Iigijzilame Smt..M.K.Sharat;ia was before the Labour
£'x;it§ift'V a petition filed under Section I004-A) 0f the
i ' 1 Disputes Act ('the Act' for short) oomplannn" ' g
the antler datwd 2.11.1996 sinct: then: was iznpmper
acecpfanoa of the msigzxafion thtsaugh the mm: was not
2»
'5
voluntary. Aecmdingly, the relief of '
continuity of scwice: and consequential bencޤ__sifa;9
It was alleged that she was fI11*catcn;t$dma':3':".'.
her resignation. In fact the contents e'i»f__tI:1=-:=-;_ 'V
indicated that it is submitted "view {
meted out by Sri B.P.Lols3:s}1, Wilt; isthéé son of
the Managing Director. " me' denied t1~..e_
alicgations anci V_§roV111:a:a§;Va1}r act and as
per p1'0ocdm1;,*'fhr; accepted pu:rsua11t
to the I'£*:i;$°p()I1Ei2it)*I1v :"t!§e .TEX:{¢ufiv& Committae. The Labour
Court after iival czcmtenficsns, has by its
_awmd.;fAd'a~em o3.a,3 .2oo%: in I.I).No.7/I997 allowed the
Itinsmtemcnt of the emplcyee into
of setvicx and oeinsequcnfial benefits.
The b7a<3k&*3_é.$ge.%f"'to the extent cf 65% is also awaztied.
V' The management is calling in question the said
'awaid dated 08.03.2904 in its entirety in W.P.No.3{)060fO4
« (i,), while the ctmpioycc is chalicnging the saiti award in
12
'1'
M3
2~A was net mged cariicr; even otherwise the: H1.»-.'--¥§'t~z;a, ' b
to non--employmcnt is an industriai 55
Section 2(k); the question of _ 'V
would not arise since the V. 'is _ the
management and workmgn Sri
B.P.Lokesl1 is Iclafing of the
msignation letter '_ is not valuntary
and even has been sent ta
the s pofioe complaint had
been the management on
2.11.1996, ¥i1e;sp§.tr. that the resignation is not
V.i11tt:11a:i.c:%l;V ii; has these aspects indicate that it
V. after forcilzg the that respondent to resig
__o§i’hi§r; when the entire action was illegal and
V V’ _W’}16Il .i’h€ ‘iisapolldcnt was: entitled to be reinstated, full
.4 H ” 4.44’bV§}i(;k!xr_agcSs1″s;ihouId have been awarded.
7. The Eeanwd Government Acivocatz would mrntend
A “ihat mcrtly because fhe: petitioner institute is being aided by
I
I
F4
1 I. In this backcimp, the macd arises for _
consider the: {:0-rmcmess er otherwise of th_e.. ”
3.3.2004 passed on its mezits. A p{f%i’u$;:”fl &cff”tI;é: J T
the moulds secured fmm the C-cgtiit
that the first rcspondéazg ‘ I:’1ei’v§’.e1f as
WW.1a11d marked of her Cass.
On behalf of Director was
exatmizncd as Sari Median Raj
was ‘;;sttendcr Sri Kodanda
Ramaialfvwafié’ The documents at Exhs,
M1 to M16 ” of the: discussion made
_._by the ocaursc of the award would
. ¥1o :IV:i01;btVvAiI££iif’,;:§ltifi__ that the Labour Court has taken note of
was available on mcrord and has
.t}:1creafler”—-@t:o1.:ic.=: ta its tzucmclusion. Hmvcvcr, while examining
H ” canbétizesa of such conclusion, the oantcntzéon put forth
of the petitiorner Iegaxfiing the natum of pmof
to contend that the msipation is not a vcxluntazy
” ” “act in the prestmt facts of the case is to be oonsidemd. As
44
attendant circumstances an: necessary to he tc$.:s3:iow9
that the same is not voiuntazy as ‘by _
counsel for the petitioner. _ ‘f’hafv: .. ” ‘V
acceptance, the fimt mspondent a.%: hcj” ¥3.é:iV6
CDIl1I31aiI1€=d E0 316 P0506′ mgigfiafigrn has
been obmincd by force. cnomplainm
and t§1’ Pursuant
to such Cfllfifilfiiflf, have visited the
pefifionerv*fl1sfi:§t:f¥é ‘E admitted by the
‘ cmss–cxam:inat:ion. These
aspects wc1iVIé_ ii1c},ic}3$c’VL’;a”t.iflcre was no izltcntion to give up
_or mlixfigfiish h€I;.’€§f.7.i:(L§§f””I:?€Spiffi the contents of the so called
__and the submqucnt action of the first
that the resignation is not voluntaly,
V .t}1crc”.””is iiieniai of the allegations in the lcttcr of
but by a $i1:£;tp}e letter of acceptance ciatad
(Ex.M16} the resignation Iettcr dated 11.9.1996
VT ‘was: actbeptcd. If such letter has been accepted, the contents
1;.
1’11 qucsfion was not diseonfinuad, she would haw.’- .
dchitely in a better pcmifion due to the benefits of V’
service. Thereibrc, keeping all theseeA»Vaspac:i§s
goidcn mean has to be struck as
Supreme Court. While considtizjing that aspecii, ={3+n»’i1rt
cfiot also loose sight of the f;!1__c pc;..i:’ifio1:V1_¢r_i.:-.5. a $111
training institute which b3f’t 1.1ue:’– .C3fi§cxnment and not
a out and out busincag cstafifishmcng with profit
meativc a1OI3€.””‘§’I(f£i§i§,fé,. :3 c:}'”fh;i1s nature, the awaztl of
bacIi’wagcs ‘£_zt Lahcmr Court would not
be justified. into consideration, in my
v’.vi::w, it be agifiitxpxjatz fo award 35% of the amount as
‘tfitigg said extent, the impugned award calls
for ._ V V V ‘V
*1[‘Z._ Raving dwidcd these aspects of the mafia’, the
viéouzd be with regard to the liability to ccamply wit}:
‘T .§.§e”a1$Ia11i. Thcsugh the learned amuse; for the pctiticner
}? has relied 011 the decisiozx of a fiivisien ficnch of this Court
a
V.
25
in WA 1310.134/2003 to omzitend that the ”
should be heid liable, the same woflid >0}? T
since in the amid case, the ism1c:.1:7elatmi:i=
and pensicarxary benefits 1zndc1;’V””t]V§t: finds in
respect of an aided post! ‘~.I;_t:1 of the
view” that the Pegasus: s Lisfiis with the
implcmentafiozzy. tjht: flic payment of’
backwagcs action taken by the
petitianer ‘i;aug;ht and as such
the fa. the secnnd vcspondcnt
hercira. u M ‘
~ the foflowing:
%% Vi oanm
*~i) w.P.Ns.32491/04 stands dismissed.
W.P.No..’3006Q[04 is allowed in part.
Ccwnscquent thereto the awmti datad
83.2004 inscrfar as the gant of
baqzkwagcs is modified hoiding that the
A
‘n
Akc
26
first I’€Sf_)(:)lZld€I1t hctwtan would .
to only 3&6 01′ tm j.
In all other
08.03.2004 110 ~:u§;?’j1éé7
stands .. V
The partiw to