The Principal vs Borappa on 22 September, 2008

V I THE %Ex§;c:L%I*2+1V”£:. MGINEER
F, K R DZVISZQN, KR SAGAR,
b.1-i23NDA§’A 1313??-:07.

PETITi{)NE§R§

::_B’*{‘;t1R’I;4IJ2§_G;é;DEESH MUNEARGI, AGA)

(I?«r£PLEA£}’E’33;?f PETITIONER, ‘ V I D E
c.c;RD;3:;R ma. 18.09.2008)

M1} :

BORAPPA

S/0. BGRAIAH

MAJOR, KA.LS’§’AVADI,
MYSORE TALUK

K R MILL Po-ST, MYSORE.

IN ‘FEE Hifii CQURT OF KAELHATAKA 393′}? BAN(}A1X_JR£ W.F.NC}.S32 SF 2&0′?

IN EFHE HIGH COURT 53}? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.?l’:’Q.83Z OF 139? ”

2

2 BORA, S/O. BGRAIAH
MAJOR, KALSFAVADI,
MYSGRE TALUK .

K R },V{iLL POST’, MYSGRE. ‘

(BY M[S, AGNIHOTRI Ms.) ‘V

THIS WRIT PETITION IS ;r.II,j£*D”L:NDER’ A.R’?1..«::LEs 225
AND 227 cap’ THE C1€)f_\ISI_’ITU’}’It_’_)N ..g.:1§”~z.N:3:A PRAYING TO
CALL F911′ THE RECoR@s.oN ‘1=?I;13: OF’ THE LABOUR
czavm, MYSORE IN I:eE12*E§=:E’1\:'<:E f€~O'.3}'v/98 AND QUASH
ma JUDGEMEFJT ANi3""A"\&'AR}3,iD_RDERé IDTD. 15.05.2004,
953323 BY, «"133 =;LA:g«:9'LIR. " zo.;37;93;«V:{)E AfI§~£EXURE~A BY ALLOWING

THIS wIeIT%’PEf;fi–‘:1’0′;v.. J

ms Pi3iiFITf§N,::C§M_I353hd’ ON FOR PRELIMINARY
§~IEARfN(}– IN *3’iGgQ::*PT,i “”1-“H”iS DAY THE) comm MADE
THE FOLLOWI’E€.G:

7éhDER

% A:’*1′}{4g§:~ faxsjard hated 3.5;-O6«2004 A12:1exu:’e~”A” in

/ 1998 of the Labour <::sun;, Mysom,

camzd in q::estien in this ma ;;-mtien by the Stats

: 'm:p1ft3s€m1§aeci by its Waiier Rasource Departmant,

' <:?fiés:::-zires 1:0 bra quash:-3d on the fofiotvmg twm counts:

:2. In the first piacz-3-, withom: impifiading thtf State,

the adjudication brzzfora the Labcrm' Court gazmat but be

M

IN TIE H1{{H COEIRT CIF K.ARNA'E'AKA AT BANGALORE %'.P.2\5i3.S32 {)F 206?'

"

IN THE HIGH CGURT CF K.5&RNAT}’uKA AT BALVGALQRE W.I’.N€TI.832 OF 2937

3

said ta be invalid. Secticn 2(g) of the

DispL1tcs Act, 1947 (far short ‘Acrt’), dafmes

meaning in’ relation to an iI1d},1st1’y “= V

authority of the Depaltinent 0f Zthe

or State Government, the”at;:_3;haz*ity .3thai;–.V: *

behalf or where no a;1th(}I’it3!._:i?.§»v Head of
the Deparumtnt. ‘I’i”:.{éT – put to great

disadvantage éfflfxe EX6Ct1fi1’t_f is made a party

and H tllereundar without
impleatiiag Possibility of p€ri,odi<:a.1

transfers of v§1}€"EXE§C!_i§'iV€ Engineer, the claim havirzg

years of alleged termixlation, the

A Vi.:n..{t;i'fica wili have no knowladge of the facts.

The. re_spcw}§i¢:ient is allegtetci to have been appointed as

an daily Wagas. Therefare, when the

1;éspa11deat aaught for reference of the dispute for

" ""adjudicati01:i1, might to have ensured tha States:

Government is a party and having 110:: done so, the

MK

IN THE HIGH CQURT {JF KAKNAYAKA AT BANGALORE W.?.N0.S32 OF 206'?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF iQ§.R.N'AT.»'§I(fiL AT EANGALQRE W.P.NO.83Z OF 238? '

4

State is entitled te challenge the award

on it, since 110 opp::)1’1:11nity was:’e§ite:;:d__e§§ ti}

defend the claim. I11 identical eii*e_1i133_,stanees’t}1is V¢£’,€i~u14t’–.,L

in the mse of new
ENGINEER we- 85 Afldmsn 1,
held. that the State party to the

“L”: :§eeef1:”3_”~}§1aee’,’ “‘–a?;1mi£ted1}f, between the
date (Sf e’;11:egTe<:i hand the date of reference,

there is a' }::§atus_:sf which remains unexplained

' _ is Iii)' 'mateI'ia1 ta satisfactorily explain the

the dispute was kept alive. In the absence

(if '£30 establish that the dispute was alive

throi1'gh 1-tiae 11 years fer §ustifiab1e reasons, the Labcur

zmght to have considered moulding the relief as

__1_ie1é by the Apex Ceurt in the case of Dfl2EC'1'OR,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLE8, ?UNJAB AND AI€()'I'§*IER

M

5' ILR Z004 KAR 225

IN THE HIGH. C{)§3R'F QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NO.332 OP' Zfifl?

IN T1~fl3I'f£{}I-E COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NO.83?. OF 2087 _

5

vs. GURMIT SINGH9. i say so because,

of the impugned award refers t.<3""$:h<:é V

but makes no raferenca wha.tSbc\?€:fA' to 'a.,%Sa.tisfa:fta iy._

explanation far the delay. V»

4. In the ci1’cum§f;.*3:1¢€:s;” jzgstice would be
met by qL;as:i1i’1_9.g .V reznittjng the

proceeding’ ” V afresh, extxending

I’€:8.S{)17jJE1¥J_I€_A Z A’ §§;)pQi’t1u1ity”- :1-fj hearing to the parties
concemcd; incitléhig and tea adduce evidence

and ;t}f1c:*eafl:e:* pas}s an award, strictly in accordance

in the light of the decisions of the Apex

mzagéa, tha 1CaI’I}€d counsel for the

:’e$f)ond:<ér1::""'seeks to persuade the Court to direct an

. :es3:'::1§r «:5? reinstataement of the: worlanan, in the Eight sf

.' f'§I1"1d_i:1gs recorded sup1*a, more appmpréately in the

" "absence-.: cf reievant material constitutiilg substantiai

M

2 2007 {5} sec: 727

IN TEE HIGH CCBURT QF KARNATAKA AT BANGALDRE W.P.N0'33Z OF 2913?

flflf THE; HIGH CBURT OF KARNAYAKA AT BANQAIDRE W.P.N0.332 OF 2007 Q *

é

Iegai evidéncs of the fact that the disputs ._i;@;5j1§~§i_1iéf{:'

during the hiaitus of 11 yaars, «fiat '1

accept the plea and is acc0;rcjix_1gly, QI'«'3j{'3€t€d. A'

I,f;% "Ig&ge

KS

EN THE HIGH COURT DP' KAKNATAKA AT BANGALORE W.P.NO,832 OF 206?