IN1§H9HHHiCOURT(H?KARNATAKA.BANGALORE
DATED1$flSTHE]2"*DAY(H*0CTOBmR2QQ9_
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ' ~ 2
MISC.W.N0. 9593E140IefO'.§bo§SOV
WRIT PETITION N0. 24$S_ 0F'2Q07(LrK$R?3C--)
THE KARNATAKA STATEROAO E. ; ._ .
TRANSPORTCORPORAIION 2
CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIG'EvSADA:1\¥A '
SHANmINAGA'B; .BAN'GALORE'-- 2 V.
RERBY I'I$-CHIEE_1f.A1V' QFIj'IC.Ei?g.. ,
...PETITIONER
(BY sM.'3;1_ ANAN'D;
AND
1 LABOUR .cOM-MISSIONER
_ OFFICE'O.F LABOUR COMMISSIONER
"1:;.ARMIKA,_BHAV,ANA
' BANNERUGAHJFA ROAD
~ BADIGALORE --- 29.
' _ "(R-'1 d£;1eted v/o dt. 12/10/09}
._ 36 YEARS
.. S/_O. R SHIVANNA
'R/O. 2639/1. HOSABANDIKERI
6TH CROSS. CHAMUNDIPURAM
- MYSORE. .. RESPONDENTS
Ea_&BYSRLTRA&M%®LRSBGLAMWWEMFORCVRQ
3′;
i 33′
THIS MISC.W FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 1713 OF
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT 1947, PRAYING TO DIRECT
THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE WAGES UNDER SECTION
178 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT 1947
RESPONDENT FOR HIS SURVIVAL.
THIS MISC.W. COMING ON FOR C.’I’H§1s..
DAY THE COURT MADE THE F()LLOWIN(} .
oRnER:W”i2
This application is
claiming wages under SecVtiorii’~1 ofthe Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, of the writ
petition prefe.iT4e–d calling in
question the Court.
to be dismissed at the
thresho1d,RI”m,ore.’.’scj’.jfi””.the light of the fact that the
I applicaiit has beednmfeinstated into service as a ‘trainee
” of the award of the Labour court and
has be_ei1_p’aid Rs.3,669/– being the gross pay, which
accortiirig to the learned counsel for the petitioner is the
I payable to the ‘trainee drivers’. In that View of
53′ 5
5 iii
the matter, this application deserves to be rejected and
is, accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
IUDGE
111.