IN P1W HIGH COURT OF KARNAI’AKA AT BANGALORE Dated thia the 4th day of June, 1998 BEFORE THE BON’TLF MR. JUSTICE V.P. MOHAN KUMAR 030F 198 BETWEEN Karnataka State Road TransDort Corporation, Central Office, K,H, Road, Bangal ore - 560 P27 (by its Chief Law Officer) .. PETIT1OR (Sri Prasanna Kumar for Sri K,L.N. Rao, Advocate) A_ND 1. Rarnachandra (deceased) S/c Ttppana Ssgrkar R/o Old Bhoi Gaul, H.No, 41286 Vidya Ma.ndir, Maktarnpur, Near Saraf Bazar, Gulbarga his Legal Representatives (IRs) a) Ria bai ‘lfe o Sri, Rariachandr, major h) Amita D/o Ramachendra, Maj or V a 2 a eK e) Ambadas S/o Ramachandra, Major d) Tithal Sb Ramaohandra, Major e) Dhanraj Sb Ramaohandra, Major 2. Presiding Officer Labour Court Gulbarga RESPONDENTS Writ Petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to isaze a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction quashing the Award Annezure a A dated 5/4/93 of the Labour Court, Oulbarga in KID No. 101/95, etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hecing,tbis day, the Court made the following S OJD_Efi_ The petitioner, ESLTC, challenges the award passed by the Labour Court. The worker in question was working as an Artison. It is alleged that he was absented unautborisedly from 28e3e1994 to 1a9a1994. On this allegation, an enquiry was held and the worker was found I.. e3e found guilty of unauthorised absence. Accordingly he was dismissed from service • Thereafter the worker raised a dispute urderSection 10(4—A) of the I.D. Act challenging the dismissal order. The Labour Court after considering the respective contentions held that the domestic enquiry held is not fair aid proper. The Management was called upon tc lead evidence • But unfortunately the Management did not participate aid led evidence. Meanwhile the worker died. The Labour Court after considering all the issue set aside the order of dismissal and called upon the Management to pay 75$ baokwages or 7% cf the current wages whichever is more from the date of claim petition i.e. 25-8—1995 till the death of the worker i.e. 16—5—1996. The said award is challenged by the Corporation in this proceeding. I have heard Mr. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. K. Lakehmineayana Rae, learned counsel for the Corporation at length. I — satisfied that the the award does not call for interference as the findiis be are a question of fact. But it bs toield that there is unauthorised bseoe, The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges have not been proved ar 1 d it is not shown to be an unthorised absences Therefore the awsr of the Laour Court does not call for any interference, The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, Sd/ JUDGE Vb/Hrp