Smt M M Jhansi vs The Karnataka State Tourism on 9 November, 2010

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to
the order passed as per Annexure~--D, contended that
when once the petitioner is regularized in service, the

effect should have been given from the date'

appointment i.e., from 10.7.1985,  

1.7.2008 and secondly, the eond'itions 

reguiarizing her services also are not applicable"

petitioner as her appoin't,rfient was il"1.»Ifi3ide on

1.7.2008 but she joined the'  as far' back as on

10.7.1985.

V for the  is that the petitioner, if at all,

is aggrieved Vbythe:.""-conditions of service, she has

a1t.ernat.e rernedy of seeking the relief from the Labour

V jcogurtl VA.i:)y:'1=a__ising a dispute and, as such. the writ

'-pfietition'.i's..  rnaintainable.

 z The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response

2  to"«.theHaforesaid contention taken in the objections filed

Algbyflthe respondent, submitted that, in the event of the

petitioner being given the liberty to raise an industrial

iv

5 :

dispute regarding her service conditions, limitation

ground be taken care of.

5. Having thus heard both sides and as the petitioner

satisfies the definition of “workman” under

of the Industrial Disputes Act and

being an industry, the remedy a_vaiiabie”‘to.:

is to approach the Labour-.Court._by wagwbof

reference under Section of ‘:I.Ifif§.ACt and,
therefore, this writ vvbieirnaintainable. In
the event of the petitioner:*ap’pro_aeh_ingftbe Labour Court
by way a’:.rei’ere11_sejg* Section 10{4–A) of
the jixnitation shall not be raised as

a groun’d_b5′ the

. . . . . . . u

aT1’Vher-g.urritV”pet1tion stands disposed of with the

s,., (3res’aid’v observations.

sdls…

judge