Srikantha Chandrappa Nagareshi vs Btp Structural (India) Pvt Ltd on 3 April, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY OF APRIL 2008

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICE SUB}-IASH B.Am_   L' %

 Chandrappa Nagareshi,
Aged about 25 years,

C/o. SC Chowgale Building, V  
Mahadeva Galli, Ganganagar,  
Machche, Belgaum,

Belgatun District.     '

 S11 (11 S.  H r'
AND:

BTP suucméal    

Plat N0. 138_/.143,' V
Industfial Estatg,'*
Belgaum,  VA

Belgaum District. "

D¢..r.+.1 u :24-.-. J -... -.u4._. ..-..
n

It .....' "g a na:.._.._._
r;_yu.:. Jgtnw nu.Luuuuu--1-tuvc gnu cl.

(1"33'_ 'i\Ji;a11it1t1ati:1:"i5.G§a.lad. Adv.)

-a...-coo------

.. RESPG:'V'BE1'V"i'

mswne 'fiéfiifion is filed under Articles 226 81'. 227 of the

_f    Petificn comifig on for  Heating in 'E3'
uG_tm1.1p..this day, the Court made the following:

 hCo:1stit11ti:)n aifiz-.dia praying to quash the orders passed by the
_ *~.._L_eaz:x_1cd Judgp, Labour Court in reference No. 16512002
" " Dt.20.03,200'3~ vidc Annex-D as the same is illegal, void and liable

f "to beset aside, etc.,.



.2.

Q_B.D_lLB
The petitioner has assailed the award dated 20"' 
2003 passed in Ref.No. 165/2002. it  it "

2. The Labour Court has dismissedthe mreisnssi on the  it 2
ground of non--pmsecution. It appears :'»that;"flre petitioneriihatf-i.:

not shown interest in contesting thsinaxtteri'  it

3. Pet:it'r""r h's produced sheet on   of the
Labour  The matter iwg-,3   «complainant's
statement by 19.3.2oos.ig  was adjomned to
20"' Match 2003 Sasiwas'-iansentiiand on 20"' March
2003. it was ;,:_   the award it appears
that, on the same --. been passed. When the
matter is   §'003, the Labour C_urt ong..-
to have giyt§n"next    011; one hand. the order *'h''et

" the  was afiour"-cl "fd on the other hand. the

1 'V  u  same day. Further, even in dismissing

T'  reference for non-prosecution. the; reason should have been

' "  for the-diismissal. No mason is assigned except saying,

 gidisrnissed.  non-prosecution. It is not clear as to Whether. the

'éounseli appeared. whether the Counsel was consistently absent.

 Duo.' reasons are assigned for the conclusion. In such

 circumstances, I find that the award requires to be ;.ter1'e:e_..

I

Z.
r'¥*'"|" *



Accordingly. the Writ Petition is allowed. The awaid dated

20th March 2003 passed in Ref.No. 16512002 is quashed.  

Learned Counsel for the respondent submittrsd  '

petitioner has settled the claim with the respondenf”iiY”sTi§”éPti338Vi’ A V’

money towands his claim and the mfcmnce

consideration. No such matezial is jéimoidncedhbefom It

is open to the respondent to pmdnoe’»vmaieIiai_AAbei’ore the

If