IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST ~
BEFORETAAU
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'1'1iC_E.-ANLK.PATIO
W.P.NO.15189 OATTQOO7{LA-.TER1;,
BETWEEN .' 'V " :
SRLLYALGURDE @ YALGU RUDESTT
S /O SANJEEvAcHARYA....1OS.H1 ._
AGE: ABOUT 38YE.AR.'Ej'-_ '~
OCC: SERVICE, 1?;/~O S1JAT°U'R
TQ. 8: DIST."Bf:_1--AiPUp__ » _ ...PETITIONER
[By Sra_..
ALNQ A Q _ 1.
THE ASST; A.EXEO"L1Tfi?I: ETJOINEER
PHE '£--'WD H}\NDPUMP- UNIT
NOW CALLED AS ..Z__1_3___ ENGINEERING
. * SU:S-1:)T'v1Si0N, STATION ROAD
A SIJAPURTU Tg';-3: DIST. BIJAPUR .... ..RESPONDENT
A 'i}?§.y'--.SrT'.vSfi§VAY(§G1MATH ASSTS, ADVS. )
'fHIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF
'' ..THI_§ CONSTETUTION OF INDEA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
{ORDER DT.21.1.2006 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT.
* -~B1JA1>UR IN APPLIATEON NO.72/1999 AND NO.12/2002
VIDE-.ANN-F AND ETC.
%'..----«---"""'
THIS WP COMENG ON FOR PRE3LIMiNARY HECARENG EN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, N.K.PATIL J., MADE THE FOLLOVVENG:
ORDER
The petitioner assailing the correctnessv.o’I’::the””–,A’
order impugned dated 21.o1e;v2oos’,d
A.Nos.’72/1999 and 12/2002 v1d’e,pA;mdexuréd’
file of the Labour Court, {rvrit 9′ 9
petition. He has furthergsotieghttfordirection directing
the respondent to pay ‘as claimed in
A.Nos.72/1999″d;1id 12/205012 ‘eriiéde~~dndef Section 33[c)
(2) of
2. of the case are that, the
petitioner ea1’1ieI’~fi1ed vW..P.No.27551/1998 against the
Ziliaddfianchayat. The said matter had
IIdp’-«.,for’f-consideration on 21.9.1998. The writ
_petition..__” been disposed of holding that, the
9′ kietitiorier is entitled for continuity of service from the
.9 ‘d.ate'”‘of reference of dispute. The respondent has also
9 “filed W.P.No.29082/1998 and the same has been
dismissed, against which the respondent filed
? r4-/I
to interest at 18% from the date of receipt of the copy of
the order till actual payment. Being aggrieVed.«jb_yHthe
order impugned passed by the Labour *
petitioner felt necessitated to Zpres-ent nu
seeking appropriate relief as stateldysupra.
3. The only Sri.
R.B.AnneppanaVar, for the
petitioner is ‘committed an
error. in to a sum of
?2l,85,G-/–~= The labour court
has avtrarding wages at ?15,750/ ,
which justiltialble. Therefore, it requires
” _ modification of t’he…order passed by the labour court.
._ ;A;'”.terl’:;’l°i’earing learned counsel appearing for the
peti’tion:er”and after careful perusal of the order passed
byephellllabour court, I do not find any error much less
liirnaterial irregularity as such committed by the labour
“court. The award is just and reasonable. The labour
court directed the respondent to pay wages at 3′ 15,750/ –
%n//_}..,..»–*
with 12% interest from 22.11.2000. If the said amount
is not paid within the prescribed iimitation p€ri0d;:”-thfi
petitioner is entitled to recover 18% *
reasoning assigned by the iabo’u’r’~court 0
reasonable and therefore does notE:_aI1_for interfereriC:e.ir1’V _
this petition.
For the foregoingreasonsi.»thejoetitiori is dismissed
as devoid of me_rit..__
Ordered aé,o’«;:_ording’1y9;’rr :
séia
Tuéég