Karnataka High Court
Mr Swarup Kumar Roy vs Dtdc Courier And Cargo Ltd on 18 January, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DATED THIS THE 18?]?! D.AY.QF 1.0 V' A ;
BEFd_RET.'. T " Q % TI-IE I-ION'BLE 'REDDY' A
WRIT PETITIQN N9-.""&s.13:4f§8.§)F; 2OG9~"(§I.~RES) BETWEEN : " ' .% MR. SWARUP i{.UM;fR ROY .
AGE 45 S/O LATE 'ASE~I.IJ'5fO:315I..__R£)Y ' ' R/AT NL")_.5f:';_. '.1 ST Mz~'.I_I\I~[" ._ BEsfr..cQ'L:N*rI--"H: .11. ' A CHIKKAB Ef1*_rA E51-.fA}_.LI' v'1IjyA_1:aA:\:'YA9URA15:9."--« ' ' BANGALORE .09': " ~ 4. ...PF.)TI'I'IO.N ER (BY. SR] . I_' .SA'I*ISI"iC17i}\NI)RA KUMAR. ADV. ] ._ "-T'¥._.%.n1)'*15id~.<: dc)*zj£21£«:Iz 81 CARGO LTD ' D'1jI)'C'i.HOUsE.
3.».f\/lC"'FORIA ROAD BA:§IGALoR1'«: 550 047 x I COEVIPANY RP3GIS'I'§:",RI:?D U§\Hf)ER «="1'I~1E c0M1>A_N1Es ACT. 1.956 RE1i>R1~:sEN'I'I«.:1) BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING IDERECTOR MT. SUB}-{AS181-i CI---IAKRABORW
2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER I.')I')PAI'{'I'MI:IN'I' OE-7 LABOUR IDEVISEON 4. KARMIKA I23! IAVANA £":..?"<~*5..
BAN N F,RGHA'i' FA ROAD . v. __ ',_ BANGALORE 560 029 ...RESIf?C)I\}D¥§I'€TI'S» (BY SR1. JAGADISH MUNI)A.RGI._;G.A]_' THIS PETITION FILED IA;RT'1CI;~I*', S 2'2I6«..I&-227 "
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN1)IA'--._PRAYH\TG"TO 'QU.AS--L|E:1 THE ORDER/AWARD I)'F.'2"f;._12.2008 IN IIgI3Ivé.I\?Q,V65/2005' PASSED BY THE III ADDL. ';~,A130IIR COUE"_I?, BANGALORE. WHICH IS PRODUCED AND "MAI«2;I<I«:1)"As ANNEXJ-1 AND THIS PETITION 1C%QMIN--c." HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT Ix/1Am«:_TI»»II: FVQLL0wIN--{;:
'}'he_pé:_t1»'ti0Ii'r:'I'._(i'iéLjmVi1'1g II) have been appointed as a BI'arI'ChViI'1¥£fh;iIg€"'=QVfi 'phrobation for a period of six nI()nthé*--aVI1d ia.t__,eIi_é)I1,§(:I)I1fi1'n1ed in the S€I'\r'iCE}S of the 1f'c§'Esp().fId¢rII,~p'I'iv.;I.1'.e' ('.'.I1"1p1()_\/£31". asseI'1',iI1g Ihai the II21t.1,.1re ' '(*)§7wVV'01'KpLll'€1y and dearly clerical and secretarial an'§E_A€iischarged duties on the iI1s1'.ruct.iorIs and dire-f:ti'0ns of the Asst.£\/Ianager or Branch MaII21ger, V' . _21ggriewed by the I:erminati()n of his service without prior I'1()ii(7£".. raised an iI1d:,Ist:.ria1 ciisputte \VhiCI"1 when referred for eId_jLIdicaI.i(m by the Stme Cx()V€1'I1II1C?l'1{ to the £11 Add}. Labour C0L.Ir1'.. Ba1Ig;21}r)re: and regisI;ered as M
-1 ..J_.
Ref.No.66/2005 ied t.o an award Annexure--H rejecting the reference and 'f:l€*3VV[1(?:V€"~.thi§'l"»VI'lf petition.
2. According to the_ lee1ri";wi--..coL1ns'el.: the 'Labou.r Court was not justified the petitioner was a Hxwlthin the definition of the 2(5) of the Industrial 'ID Act' in order to _ _ the learned counsel and e:-gainined é.he"a\va'rd i1'I1pL.igl'1t'3d. what: is patei'ii,. is that 'ga'ft.e1*" .ldisci._issing in great. elaboration the material on _ i;it:wl'udii'1g" the evidence both oral and d'ocu.rnen'tary adduced by the parties and in particular ' the admission of the petitioner in his deposition, as recorded from parag1'aphs I3 onwards that the nature of work was purely and clearly clerical and se(:1'ei.arial carried out at the inst.r1,1ctio1'1s of the Asst. l\/ianager or let LAASLAA to call for 21 different' c<mc1usi0n and intQrf'£E-?re%.j_~u{ifl"; the verdict.
The writ petition is de\r0_1Ad;(")'f ':fn'e.ri'i--,V<a'fic1T_Tjis.'* accordingly rejected.
ln.