IN T ;I 3 >K 2 ’ AvAAT . m \t D 0 ‘l - ICT mA r- r 3 L ‘J I- 30 A ml :rlicx cc .12159/10’L i.°h orb I )fl i.sitta ,mD, )(a 3U vnar, 0oo:’XLInrton oo casual , 0’fiec th A 0 ‘r cr ci 0&14 ih ii on, a1, Diate IThro. Thy i hr hoc .S.’t tr ‘ 3 1: 3r LI rThros_nt. cc: its lcLita z to Licici reifaro oh Tahru Li’artnt, v —, Li cbs XarnaoaNa Nct:i’—i-v I ; LVi, r lbs chi - -, or ‘ctrtct’ Lir’ & 7 4 / 4’ —‘ N, ) I 7$ V • cbo ‘Th. In’ o:rr ( 3 c’c 1 , OA” lrol 0, K&rt3ata 1 I i—rIcity “or-, [ucIrabab, :i or. t e2e S. The ‘!xecutive EngineerlEleci) 0624 Division No.1, Gandhiriagar, sellary e 583 101. 6. The Assistant !xecutive Engineer (Eleci), 0614 Sub-Division, Hadagali, Di st • Bell sly. • a PCNfl’tNT3 (By Snt.Bharathi Nagesh, A.G.A. for R—5 & 6, Sri 9.C.prabhakar for R-2 to 4) 4cR This Writ petition is filed unSet Articles 226 & 227 of tie Constitution of India oraying to declare that the termination of the service of the petitioner a lire—man in the office of the respondeit No.6 i 9 illegal and void: direct tie. respondents 2 to 6 to reinstate Mm into service as Line—man with all consecruential benefits and absorption of It 5 services on permarent basis with all benefits flowing there with etc., Thi 5 Writ Petition is caning on for hearing this day, tie Court made the f 01 lowing:— 0R ?R Tie petitioner in this case seeking varioa reliefs including auashing of the imnugned endorsenent at Annexure-3 urging various legal contentions. 2 • Learned counsel for the netitioner Sri. .lnsera s.Shastry is not pressing the oth except the relief for quashing Annexure-7 — 3 — the eaSer sement ‘suet bw the let rest-ondent. The first respondent ciover asset decianed to make a refere1.ce, in exerc.i.se of its r,oeier under the prov.sions of the Industrial nspute Act, 19470 sOlS I n the oround that. the petitioner has raised a dIspute after 22 years from the satr of termina.tion. Therefore 0 there is a .elay in raising the dispute. The State Governrent. has failed to exercise itc power under Section 10 of the Art. Learned counsel for the netitioner suhuits that this case 1 covera. bar the nivision Seunh judgment of this Court deci,d& in W,A. po .1219/90 iivaNe Ph PPPA vs. STAT3; Or MAR NAT AMA. This ruourt ha 5 clearly held that it is not op to the Government to reject the reference either on the ground of iay or on the ground that the Nt—. enoary was not held prorerly. Those findinos are within the domi ne of the adjudicating authority constitut.ed under the statute on a reference, In this: view: of th..e mat.. ter, the imp uned endorse ment Annexure—j is not sustainable in law. xrit efltIc!n is allowed. Rule made absolute. The first. respondent directed to examine the matter afresh c’ th ba5i 0 th Oq rvati’rr mi Ia acY rjr rcJs %t ro r C ak af ren a ay copr lets l:r Thnrt ‘‘ 4 r r nrr’ ct C tt I 4 iEtri I isrete t v1ti tn motV freT ir atD ef r Ccipt of thI err, :: 1 t C ‘tS ar a rd 1SOn