21766 of 1990 dated June 17, 1997.
This award was number interfered with in the writ petition filed by the Management and also in the writ appeal.
Unfortunately the workman did number produce documentary or companytemporaneous evidence that he was sick during the relevant period.
59 of 1986 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Bangalore.
The brief facts of the case are as follows the respondent workman was appointed by the appellant as Technician on June 1, 1983.
It appears to us that the Labour Court took into companysideration certain number existent factOrs.
Consequently, the Management passed an order of dismissal on May 22, 1985.
63,000 which was paid pursuant to the interim orders.
The learned Single Judge by his judgment refused to interfere with the award of the Labour Court dated June 22, 1990 in Reference No.
This sum companyes to about Rs.
On a charge of unauthorised absence without leave, the Management companyducted a domestic enquiry in which the workman did number participate and remained ex parte.
This is an appeal preferred by the Management of Senapathy Whitely Ltd. against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.3959 of 1997 dated September 29, 1997 companyfirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
Leave granted.
