IN THE HIGH CO bitT OP KAitNATAKA AT BG1JRE DATED THIS THE 5 Til DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE BETEEN: The Registrar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dli arwad58 0005 (By Sri B.C,Prabhakar, Adv) Petitioner 1 Sri K,Venkata Reddy, Junior gineer (Agriculture), Main Research Station, Krishin ar, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad58OOO5 2 The Presiding Offices, Labour Court, Eubli (By Sri Miesh Wadiyar for Sri Mob Shtgowder for R1; ri T,PNambiar, AGA for R2;) .Respondents. This writ petition is filed under Articles / 2D6 id 227 of the Constitution of d1a with a Lcv —2 prayer to quash nnex—A dt.24,6,96 for quashing the order dt.24.6.96 by 82 and etc., This petition coming on for hearing this day the Court made the foil owing: ORDER The petitioner challenges the award passed by the Labour Court under Section 33(c) (2> of the Industrial Disoute Act. The rker in question was appointed on temporary basis on a salary of .60OO per month He was working con tin uoueiy as such. Thereafter the worker applied for the regular past in response to the advertisemit given by the petitioner and he was selected and appointed with effect from 15.06.1982, as a fresher, After a lapse of nearly 9 years, he made an apolication under Section 33(c) (2> of the Industrial Dispute Act, claiming that the services out in by him from 12,01.1978 to 15.06.1982 has to be reckoned for the purpose of increments and other benefits, This claim was upheld by the Labour court. 2. The contention of the petitioner is C a3e that they haved.eijeödthe claim made by the worker • According to the pet itioziers as per the service conditions services rendered by employees on consolidated salary on temporary basis and later appointed on regular basis in the sas post ig counted only £or the zurpQse of pension and leaye and tot for any other financial benefits. benefits The contention of the petitioner is tat ttis aspect has not beaconsidered by the Labour Court. But in this behalf, none of their pleas were uiged by the petitioner before the Labour Court. There was a lapse on their part. Ii view of the circumstances that there are nearly 300 similarlj-placed persons and that they aX!. will be affected by the order it is only proper to setaside the order passed by the Labour Court and the matter be remitted back to the Labour Court for considering the matter afredi. The whole difficult arose because of the lapse on the part of the petitioner. In view of such circumstances, the petitioner thafl pay a sum of b.1,000—0O as cost to the first respondent for the lapses. This Wv —4— This will be irrespective of the final outcome. I make it clear that only In the event the petitioner pays this cost to the first respondent, when the matter reaches the Labour Court he will be allowed to raise any plea and contend orelse the petitioner is not entitled to raise any contentions, Writ petition disposed of as ab ove. Parties to a peaX On 2O,O71998 1-’ f 14; 4 ksp/RBH/ -