G P Annaiah Achari vs The Management Of M/S Karnataka ... on 24 May, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

G P Annaiah Achari vs The Management Of M/S Karnataka ... on 24 May, 2011

Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy

I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF   "

DATED THIS THE 24th DAY Qiér+:mY.'%A2é'11%%.;i§%% 'V 

BEFORE   'V  V
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIf§E RAM  i-;J=;DnY

WRIT PETITIOi5§ BYo.   :<)1if '2ooe(I}'r ER)

BEZTWEEN :

G PANNAIAH AcH;>;;~<1    " _ 
AGE? 52   'V   "   .
S/O. LATE C} M.fPE,DDP. NA;"<lJACH;?--fiRI'v.: 
No.19, MUNESHWARA '{'EMPLE: SfI'RE2E:"'f
    
3&0  _9im cR:>s_s   .
NANDIN1 LAYOUT 9051?. _  
BANGALQRE;- 580 096.   
 ' . 2  ' ...'PETITIONER

QBYV" S N§éx:I<«(3;'1:§g1;xNJULA N KULKARNL ADVS)

~AND   -- A'

"   OF

M13. KARN'z'¥£}LKA CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES
CO'RPOfRAFf€3N :;m.,
No,A«.15:., 152, 18'? STAGE:

  PE?ENY}'3s. ENDUSTREAL EZSTATE
., BEYGALORE - 560 058

  RBPCBY ms DIRECTOR,

, ; .REZSPC)NDEZNT

' 'HES 1&7 PETETION IS FILED UNDER AR'§'iC{,,ES 228 ANS

227 OF THE €QNS'ITI'{fi'I(3E\§ OF INDEA PRAYING TO CALL FQR

THE ELNTERE RECORDS FROM THE ADDL LABOUR CQUKE'
PERTAENING T0 ANN»~8 31 QUASH THE AXVARD PASSED BY THE
I33'? ABEL. LABQUR CCéUE~?;'§I BANGALCERE UTE, $18.95 EN
i.§}.N0.82,f 3996, VIBE: 23;NN»B: AEXQD ETC.

'E"E%I$ ?E'§§'YEif}:'~E {i{}E%'§iV§'§{} §}?'~E F5)? ?RE-,§i€§%§€i?'~«§(} EN 
GRGUF, Tiiifﬁ D2535' 'SEES CQUR'? :'a!L5%E}EZ '§'%§§Z E?'{}§,;L{}§¥"ENC}:

S»



L»)

and evidence both oral and documentary sold more

appropriately the testimony of \?VW»1 which 

unehailenged, recorded a finding that 

from service was iiiegal, and as the pi11du_:5t,:*§z to "

be closed w.e.f. 1.12.1999,  aiﬁraed  

direeted the respondent totiay €3C)% of

for the period from. 27.3.t.i'%;;9eVVt._vLto °1;12%.1_s:§99 and continuous service Wi'ti';ﬁeoete / ~. Hence this petition by t1te§vo:kn:jétfi;'

2. respondent though eerveai is a?o's}:§r1te§nci -timjepresented.

3. for the petitioner submits that th,e5?.L§tft§o1;r CAou;if.....haVing recorded a finding that the .di'smiesa}:V"'tx§?ae illegal and there being no material .§xr1iéttsoe:}'e':f to establish that the petitioner was gainfully empi~oy'ed was incorrect in paring eiovsm the baekwages .t o E_'x{}'3?«<:s. Learned eounee} further contends that the eomptianee ef the eaié aware by making eajgreeot ef Rs1.52,812.5O though received by the petitioner under protest, is or: 21 improper eaieulation. 4}. Having hegrd the learned eou:j:ee1VA.Ae§?o'.e V' petitioner, examined the award ierﬁpugnehd, foree in the submission of the learned eouneei for"i:he~ peti':;io~:1e'1*._ that the Labour Court wit}}1--o1}:€ assig:1i:1g:"reé:soﬁs ancih findings, pared tﬂo""60%: eiespite recording a finding thee illegal. If the petitioner xvezs shewgeeV~':h3V;ep'Lheehigeinfuliy employed after it cannot be said that the fiiehentitiheiivto full wages.

5. £«1: mueii_h'e_ izohtieed that the petitioner has not 8eri.::".>1l§13f Vehe1Ie:ngf_e_d»the finding that the industry stood .e1osed.__13ee:v'«o:f1.._1.}2.1999. If that is see the petitioner heafihoth heihenied full wages for the period from 2'?.'3~,~ to 1.123999 and hence, eeiie for interference " wiiij the award;

§. A8 regarés éhe meéhed ef eeéeuieiion of {he f:1I}1{}¥.iI}iS ehge 'io ihe ;3eEi§éo:1e,:* in ierme o§ She ewerui :3. ;""'~\»meu«» ?- 5 22%;' subject matter to be adjudicated in an appmpriate legal preceedingsg that Contention of the learned C(}§ ii'1S€I cannot be Cougmienaneed.

In the result, the Writ petj*£:iEin-«is vpiart. The award impugned is :0 full wages from 27.3.1995:"*':a 1.%"12i1gé9 a11 other respects remain'5s~..unaIeiefed;j 4 e e§UeGE In.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court