"'~3{«1~ THE SEETE OF KARNATAKA
H'=~é DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSICNER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNRTAKA, BANGALQéé"5{gE
BETWEEN
_..-____._........_.._.
SRI NARAYANA GcwDAj- _
S/O NARASAE QownAiWa'
AGEB ABOUT 43 YRS, '
KSRTC DRIVER '.T'",_ 3
BHUvANAHALLY'CR¢ss*§'_
GAVENAHALLY:PQST*f;E*_'E
HASSAN TQ AND n1s$*3,"'
. PETITIONER
"=. '» fay Sr; : M"N"MADHUsUsHAFABv.}
VRNDH:
...._.._.._.._._..
xx LABOUR DEPT.,
",vIDHANA SOUDHA
v,»»*mwmmmm
'"uV_REP. my ITS UNDER SECREEARY
LABOUR DEPT.,
KARMIKA,BHAVANA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD
BANGALORE
3 THE DIVESIONRL CONTROLLER
KSRTC HASSRN DIVISION
HASSAN
REspoNDENTsI2I2WI<_
(BY sRI. JAGADISH MUNDAReI–Addi::onéI2’C
Government Advocate fermfii. ‘&1_2 _:. _ ._
Sri : G A K GoweA –ADv,Eo2zR3I…=
THIS WRIT PETITION ,’Is 2ILEDf, UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 or THE_CQNSTITUTION or
INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORQER’DT. 26;e:2oo6
BY” THE RESPONDENT VIBE 2ener:aANtw_QUAsH THE
ORDER DT. 4.7.2006 BY THE K532030232 VIBE ANN-
D.DIRECT THE R22 TO “HOLD- THEV CONCILIATION
PROCEEDINGS Iw.aACcQRnAHcE,*NIIH’§LAw AFTER
ISSUING VA§2RQPRI5IE2*$eTIegs5 TO BOTH THE
PARTIEs.; ‘ 4 = =e’ _
This p’eti~tio’r1_ era for Prel 3′.minary-
hearing thisr _ day, ” , the court made the
following: * ” ‘
case, the petitioner has
“‘–=”e:’a}_le%:;%._ in,~Cfiiesition the Validity of the order
“««T..j’j»-pesered bV’3’the 2″” respondent at Aranexure-D
and the order passed by the
respondent at Psnnexure-C dated
“fj*2é;8.2o06.
2. It is the case of the petitioner
that he had been working as a Driver with
%
azxa
9] «x
x.
accordingly. Thereafter, it appears that the
matter was referred to the State Governmentdd.
and the State Government has rejected .theeddji
reference as per the order at Annexure fC{;,’e:_
3. Learned Counsel for the__petitioner’.g,”
would contend that the Conciliationd §ffice§t7»Y””
has not issued any notice to the petitioner.w’
For the first time, the cases wae_ posted gdn
26.6.2006 and on that dday,i_theufidonciiiation
Officer has directed notice to the parties. On
4.7.2006, again ,:§e; eeee ,wagi taken up for
consideration- Gn tbatnggy; thd Conciliation
Officer haa noted the aceence of the parties
and held that the tdiepete has ended in
faiiureg The order of the Conciliation officer
in Hhoidinq “thatx the dispute has ended in
I yfailure is fiithoht notice to him. The State
_i8oVernment.has rejected the application on the
{groundi that the petitioner has not shown
ddintereat in the matter as he had not appeared
7]-before the Conciliation Officer. It is
5
E.
h
order passed by the Conciliation Officer dated
4.7.2006 is opposed to the principles ofd
natural justice. The endorsement as oer g”t
Annexurewc has been issued on the ground that ”
the petitioner has not shown -interesti ina7 B
pursuing the matter before :the’,Con¢iliatiOn
Officer, which is Vagain7_aan£:a;g»_to the
material on record, As stated shove; there is
no material ~53 ireccrdhito”ighonJ that the
Conciliation_off1oer_has issued notice to the
petitioner or:hisififii§fi;id;
7r~:ln” the *te§elt, the writ petition
succeeds -end*jfl;_is accordingly” allowed. The
:”enorder of the second respondent dated 4.7.2006
7_atjRnnexurerD as also the endorsement issued
l»sy the first respondent as per Annexure–C are
l*t;herehy’duashed. The matter is remitted back to
“m_the 2″‘ res ondent–Conciliation officer for
.b . p
h*:3fresh disposal in accordance with law; The
petitioner and his Union are permitted to
appear before the Conciliation officer–?”
he
‘J
x
respondent on 2l.?.2008 at 3.00 p.m. withoufp
any further netice to them. The 2″irespQu&§fii ;
is directed to hear the parties jéfid” paés ‘
appropriate orders in accordahcefWith°law§ANg,
costs.