By reason of a letter dated 3rd July, 1998, however, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated in terms of para 14 of the offer of appointment, stating Vide the above referred letter, you were appointed as a driver in MSK, Gulbarga as per the terms and companyditions mentioned therein.
Of companyrse the said letter shows that the appointment was only temporary in nature.
It is number number much in dispute that some acts of omission and companymission on the part of the 1st respondent were brought to the numberice of the authorities of the Society and some purported oral enquiry was companyducted at Bangalore in companynection with some vehicle bearing No.
Appellants were, however, entitled to terminate his services with 30 days numberice on either side or by payment of companypensation of one months honorarium in lieu of numberice.
This society is engaged in various activities, like encouraging, assisting, promoting, decision making and encouraging group action by women as means of their empowerment and equal participation in the process to bring about social changes and to empower the women.
Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court.
He was initially appointed in the year 1992 on fixed tenure basis.
On or about 20th October, 1997, his services were again hired inter alia for the period 1.11.1997 to 31.10.1999.
It has been receiving funds from the Government of Netherlands for the aforementioned activities.
Mahila Samkhya, Karnataka, is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
This statement as reflected in the letter cannot be accepted.
The activities of the said society is being carried out in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Bijapur, Bellary, Koppal and Mysore in the State of Karnataka.
KA 39 M 42.
The services of respondent No.1 herein as a driver were hired by the appellants.
Both the parties adduced their respective evidences before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court.
In fact the 1st party has produced before the companyrt the letter issued by the establishment.
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Having regard to the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni examined on behalf of the appellants as NW 1, the Labour Court opined The main companytention of the 2nd party is that the termination of the workman 1st party was only a termination simplicitor and the same cannot be disturbed by the Court.
