}......\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EANOMOORE---_,_»
DATED THIS THE 20%: DAY OF' OCTOBER 2099": .,
PRESENT i ddx V
THE HONBLE Mr. JUSTICE V. {EOPALA
AND 1 , .
THE HONBLE Mrs.
WRIT APPEAL Np.545( {I;:iA{S.R.'"I'C):.._AA
BETWEEN:
V.Ba1akrishna, "
S/O.Vitta1 Rae, E
Aged about 56 years', ' _ __ _
R/a.C/O.DOOma1'ina '
Nadumane HO_t;_se,'*~ . 'V ' it
Perdala village, " V'
P.O.Ukkinad'}:a, ._ --
KasargOdTa1u.k, . V
Keraia State. » . ...APPELLANT
{$32. Sri.i\/I. VAdv.}
Kamatakiaw \ Sta Transport
vs E"~v'C0Fp0raAU.On, V
Rep. by its Divisiohal Controller,
-- » ..d''jE\/iysOre Divtisiori,
_ _ fM;,rso_1~e. : .. RESPONDENT
it appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
_ . Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed in the Writ
‘ V Pe_titi’On nO.4594/2004 dated 7.12.2007.
This writ appeai coming On for preliminary hearing, this day,
VEGOPALA GOWDA, J., delivered the fO31Owing:–
\/
J UDGMENT
Accepting the reasons stated in the Miscellaneous Writ, we
have exercised discretionary power and condone the delagi
this appeal by dispensing with issuance of notice to
as we are not interfering with the orderv-iiiipugneéd lappeali
and therefore, no prejudice would be to
We have heard the learned counselli’orrthe appellant at “stage of V
preliminary hearing itself and pass——-the–.following”Judgnient on
merits also.
2. The inf ‘oftiise learned single Judge is
questioned grounds.
3. .,CO’L1IlS’§2l appellant submits that the
leairned __i;iudge.lerrevd…i.n’ affirming the finding recorded by the
Lal:§’ou1′.V.lCourt.V’regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry is
“;__erroneoL1s”‘andAtiierefore, it is unsustainable in law. He further
_F.submits that tnehenquiry held against the workman is not fair and
the order of dismissal is passed by the Disciplinary
‘A’ “hf H
\N/
DJ
4. However, the Labour Court permitted the appellant to
adduce evidence before it giving opportunity to the appellant
herein. The Labour Court, on appreciation of legal
record, recorded a finding of fact answering the K V’
holding that the order of dismissal passed tagairistapplellant.
herein is justified on the basis of the docainlientarylplvevider1ce’:.iE;:sl.’g
M–1 to M–94 and the evidence of
5. The learned singlev-r_I1..idge,p.Ari’1*’1 ofljudieial review
power, has examined the correc__tnes~s passed by the
Labour Court having.pre–garci-Vito»the_:gro_unds’2«drged in the writ
petition. The La..~boi1_r_li{3o’gzrt;-._V-.b:eing”7_ah’ fact finding Court, on
appreciation: of record, has held that the
Disciplinary in dismissing the workman
from servigee as lltiiefchargesvlare proved by the disciplinary
Labour Court is not shown to be
either. erroneous orfarpbitrary in law. Therefore, the learned single
I’igh_ltlyv_.accieptled the findings and reasons recorded on the
of dispute and rejected the writ petition holding that the
_l_ev’eled against the workman are proved and he is not
H for any relief. Learned single Judge has held that framing
o»f..l.eharges is perfectly based on proper appreciation of legal
‘ “evidence on record. \N/
6. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
}UDGE».
%E §UD@ef