( IN THE HIGH OUkT OF KARNATAKA AT BAKGALCRE Dated this ths 30U Bay of June 1998 BEFORE ThE HONt BLE MP, JUSTICE V.P. MORAN KUMAR WPIT PETITIOB NO.19297/1998 BETWEEN: Sri Sahdevappa, s/o l’ 4 allappa Mayur, aged 51 years, r/a. Nahcor, challal Post, Savanur Tq., Haven Dist, ,..PtTITIONEP (By Sri. B, Joyasharthar for Sri. V. Lakshminarayana, Mv.) AND: i, Karnatalca State Road, Transport Corporation, Central Offices, K.R. Road, 3hantinaor, Bar’ga1ore27, rep, by its Managing Director, 2. The Divisional Ocro1ier, Yarn itaka State P ad Trarisoort Corroraton, Hubli Divisi ub1i, 3. The Presiding oficer, Labcur cDouxt, Hubji, . , .RESiOYDE TS This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 22... 7 of the Constjtut.jon of india, with a prayer to iash vide AnxA dt, I%l297 eo far as it cenies the backwages and continuity of service to the oetitioner and etc. This Writ Pet.ition coming on for preliminary hearing this dy, the Court made the following: 0 R D E R. The worker challenges the award passed by the Labour court, It is alleged that the worker absented to duty from l72—i982 to 202i982, Treating this.: to be unauthorised absence, rroceedinQs were initiated and he was dismissed from service, The worher raised a disrute before the Labour Court in the year 1986. The matter ws pending since then, Pend.ino disoute, the worker was reinstated under Section i.o() of the Industrial Disputes Act, Now a final oroer has been passed by the Labour Court setting aside the dismissal and awarding reinstatement, Deni1 ct backwages t / ..3e has provoked the tetationer in movina this Court. 2. The contenticn of the ‘etitioner that he should be waned backwages cannot be ac “epted The worker has been worlcing by virtue of order oassed under Section 10(2) nf the Aet ad ha has l.san receiving tile “r for tie said period as well. Zn such circumstances tiere is no justificc.tior i warding b ckwages The 1. ibour Court 5 justified it deryinq th kaccwag P. 3. The other grievarce of the petitioner ic tat continuous service has not been awarded. I do not think this rivance it’ correct. The award reaas thus:— “ T he Pesponlert ic direted t reinstate the claimant in the sarvic.e but ti. claimant is not ertitled for any backwaqes * —4— 1t is clear from the award that only baciwages is denied and the worker will be enfitled for ll other enefits due or settinc aside the termination. The worker need not have ny apprehension in this bahaif, Thereis no denial of continuous service. Petitioner will be entitled for current wages, drit Petition disposed of, Sd/ JUDGE