Karnataka High Court
S S Budapanahalli S/O Sangappa ... vs Management Of Davanagere Cotton Mills on 19 November, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
_g-
nevertheiess it being flimsy, did not call for impesing 3.
major punishment ef dismissal from service;
8. Per Contra, Sri. Semashekar, iear:ied.«ee1{,i'z1e'e1
for the respondent, Whiie seeking to sustain' '
impugned as being well merited. fu1_1yA 11101; V caliing for interference, submits having accepted the t€StiIIV1>G?(:i:5f~~,_Qf 1\A/hfi»-'€,?'~t"'>' .Vair3fii%'evei'''at''jthe '' V correct cenciusien '"~-.r;.1:1a;-gage... gf} usmg unpariiamentary iangtiége with the fact that petitieiier i1ii pzaet, used similar such 1:'a_ngua§e"'Vag.afi11ef'vefher effieers ef the factory, when minor ptiniehzfienie wjég: imposed, net resuming in _ refeifirziing the 'peiitieiier, qiiestier: of interference with »Ai:§V1€p1i:fiAiSE?fr'i%f1'€Bf ef dismissai was justifiabiy rejected. '.}f;gee;:_fi:'1eeE'AV?T3'ei:A:f€iée} furizher eubmite that the E"€S§§'{}.fi€§1"€~« 'V PafEii'ii:§fe;'e¢Ve?;efeeé en §;'?,i298@ and en ihai; scare me; the A nfiivéiéaeifffi i§'.E2§il§;§E3§E{§ fieee me: egg} fer izzferfereizeei W;
_ g_ said fact, the Labour Court was justified in rejecting that contention.
8. It is 110 dczubt tme that use of imperigifient Eanguage against official superiors by emp103a*eee.'__'§3f' faetery, that too in the presence ef 0ther"v_eQ~vére:'1;;ere;5 9 cannot but be termed as grave are no mitigating circumstances? '*-t.herg..":_:.;x?eu}d '; be justifi<:at.ioI1 for the Labour to ekereiee Ciiscretien under Sec.11m»A 0f .i11ete.nt ease, petit.ioner admifitediy' a penalty of Rs,2/ 4335 --_pL11j.i;431":':;ie:';3:' 'vferve-haxring used abusive language against his_ offieieiRsizpeeijéeer in the past, an indieater sf the,feei'~thatupeefiiegielfier was habituated %:0 Being Such. »3_ar1»g'ua._ge, '«._ §*-1'; the facts and Circumstances neticed s:;§:«a, "gee ea? imperfinent Eenguage being 3, j eeééeqfuiivegé hiengueege, by {he peiitienerg eeuid ii be said V' "..f».'€'%1?e;:.. §€: fieeeweég the §§::zt;§sE2.mez2i ef diezziieeel {mm .' Semsiee? Xfifhéie $1 is true ii fie fer the emyieyer fie impese . Re. VV
--10m in the respondent for a peried of 14 years and if c0r1ti'm;:ed up to the (fissure sf ihe factory as on 08.07.2000,, the total service wauid be approfidmateiy 21 years, ends of justice wouid be met by direCt.i12g"«..fI;.e respondent to pay Rs.1,00,0()O/-- as c0Inp_e'1;§s'efiie}fi the petitioner--W0rkman in iieu 0f;backWa'gee; V of service, consequential benefits ¢1n(i__£ei'rni1'12§1 be7£j1e§'iis ]V.:. In the result, this pefit§_<§:'1._%is eiiaxved;'-.:'f'%§e"3i,§}ard "
impugned is modified .entitli1'1g--..fine'"-petiti€5I1er--w;ork1nan to compensation of the respondent is direiziecfi to1:32:33'"w?ithii1e.Tihree months. eeeee §i3§Q§