Sri K M Somashekaraiah vs The Executive Engineer on 21 August, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K M Somashekaraiah vs The Executive Engineer on 21 August, 2008

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

1

IN 'I'§~.¥E HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT   "' 

DATED THIS THE 2181' DAY or AU(}{}.$'{"-._:2¢3(1_53'   

PRESENT: ' J

THE HOWBLE MR. P.D.  "

THE HON'BLE NM3.Ju$'r:eEE .§;S.BOl5ANNA 

WRIT APPEAL ,st>*..  j (L+'rER)
BETWEEN:    

SR} K M] somassaxakmag " - 

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS _  '

s/0 MARUL,A.=3;D£3A1AH--  ' 

12/012' KANDGAL .577ss24,_ DAYANGERE

 APPELLANT

   (ay $x~s ;éq!a.ivrL:K1:ANNAPPA, ADV. 3

 V &

 1 Taéiiaxmcuqwm ENGINEER

*  NON3, CANAL IXVISJON
YKQIALEBENNUR, HARIHAR
" "DAVANGERE

THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
N0.3, CANAL SUB DiV}SION
MALEBANNUR, HARIHAR
DAVANGERE



3 THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. _
CANALSUB DIVISION  "
MALEBENNUR
DAVANGERE

4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER   ' .
MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARIMENT
AMBEKDAR CIRCLE   
BANGALORE .   '

5 THE CHEIF ENGINEER  
UPPER TUNGA PRoIIIt«:cfrz0IsIEV..I ' "
SHIMOGA    

6 ma SECRTARY.T0'GQVE.RNME§E'F »
IRR£GAiTION'vDEPAR'PMETN'----.4 = 
I\IsauI;I)II~I<I.;_:,'   
DR 'B"R--A1£€;}3ED}iI'aR VEEDH3 
£3IINGAL<3I?I:;VI.,V_    . J

 _ _ A J  ...RESPONDEN'I'S
(By Sri ;.BAsAvaRIu mgmé, HCGA I

. 'I"'I-ilél IS FILED U] S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH

"coI3.I?r1.Ac*.r'?I2AYII~IG To star ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED EN

'I'HE 'W-R13' PE'¥TI'I'I<§bl -510.9572/200? DATED 25/01 /2003.

'ibis  coming' on for Pa-.-mmamy' ' Imam this

   delivered the followmg :

; 

V  fj   The appellant was before the Icmma Single Judge in
 *-..i "~-«'.iIi.P.No.9672/O7(L-TER) clan:mn' ' g to be mum' by the

award dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Labour Court, Hubii

}z

4
I



in 12¢; No.28/1999. The learned Single Judge hag d-mammedi' f  _: _

the Writ Petition by aﬁnmng' the award    V'

Labour Court. The appcﬂaat is    V

questioning the awaxd passed by   

onicrpasscd by the lemned  . _  A A

2. We have   11;. g for
the parties md  

3.     Labour Court Imdcr
  [Act (hcminamcx
Iefc1rcd.<.'='zsV  for adjudication arm to
coasiﬁcr  aypellant that he had been

    by the iiéégéudcnts without oompIymg' w::th' the

   250?) of the Act. The conmntion was

  as 3. awn' ' Engm' car on dmuy wage beam'

 6~.s5.:9m to m1o.1939 without any mmmmm.

A  on 25.10.1989, he in said to have been many

V   by the respondents. It was thcxuﬁxe oonmded

l 'rt that since he had worleed my man: than 240 day§;"--.his senriccs could not have been dispensed with, pmoess as contemplated under Section 25(F) gf K appellant thcrefom sought for I\'Ji!l3¥J1Ji»tAA£";'1bl'1£:.'3_t-.".' -1' "V D'

4. The respondents the 'V appellant. That apart, that the appellant is not relief, more partx:' ularly w1;cnj't1a¢ been tamed' by the yam' 1999 though he alleges tacnmn" ah'd:; ia. 'yam In the ﬁght of the evidence undated ttie Labour Court has advcrtad to by this Court as wcli as the Roam:

on this aspect of the mattrr was of the View 'though the appellant has established tha he hm far more than 240 days, he vmuid not be entitled for . The Labour Court has also ncgattved' the . with yd to the delay as rmnked by the 1:

the backgnund of such contention, we V awani of the Labour Court and my passed by the learned Single Judge. I'i tt-3&7 > have noticed the mmaoning com and the learned "gamma above. On appmciaﬁilg not ﬁt! any inﬁrmity in Smgk: Judge present in lieu of reisasaanangcntﬁeuicl Sayzujnivxopriam zciiezf to be granted V V % Court has also mam this vczy decision naked on by the learned GTHERS "VS, V imnLAL NEHRU FARMERS TRAINING , f krﬁgtrrma ii 1.1.1 633), the Hoxrblc Sirprcmc Court the position that the mlicf of oompensauon' in V T reinstatement would in the circumsmﬁ of the case the ends of justice. However, the sand' datum ' a In has been referred to by the learned counsel ' at least a higher amount of oontcntiaza of the lemma for" t:~.~x;,{ No doubt, in the instant the notitéhzg that the appellant was being -- per m:m& after reckoning the sme, had arrived at compensation. In anaiﬁonvm-'tag the appcliant "E aged about AA '(mt be cligibk: for rcguhr uavetns.'7' V' __ 'A Siatuhory bodle' 3 though at the he was working as a daily wagcr pmject. Therefore, keeping the totahty of tin: in the case on hand mt! mo the V V .amoﬁiit by the Han'bh: Supreme Cnmt in the SIIPTE. We direct that the respondents shall the appellant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-- as in lieu ofnzinstatemcnt. The award passed by " thcI.abourCouItm1dthcanicrpasscdbythclemnedSmgk' }2 'as

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court