High Court Karnataka High Court

Bangalore Metropolitan … vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 2 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Bangalore Metropolitan … vs The Deputy Labour Commissioner on 2 February, 2010
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2"" DAY OF FEBRUARY. 20

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUsT1cE RAM MoHAN"A«:§EmjY'  =  H

WRIT PETITION Nos. 10724/2009', '992¢)/2669   
19430/2009       

BEZ'.l.'VVE3EN

BANGALORE I\/IE3"l'ROPOLl'l'AN
TRANSPCJW CORPORATION

CENTRAL OFFICER.  ;

K.H.ROAD. BA.NGAL()R]-C 27    _  »

BY ITS CHIEF 'l'RAFF_IC MANACiI93§.:\IO.10724/2009

1.

‘1’1~11+;_ .F)EI3U;i'”1’_i./RBOUR ”
CQ%\{IMlE3SiONEi’1-Q. AN 1) V T}—-l 1::

” _, Am:>££1.m’1 1+;AUT1–1C)’R1″I”Y

. U«NIf)E’.R *m1::’ ~–9AY’M1:«:N’1″ Oi’ GR1–\’l’U§TY ACT

_ £3ANGA1,0Ri;.L_ RjE1GION»I

” _ ‘°;1T;M EEf::;’I;II 12/ 0 NO. 19 / 3.

.E§2,ANGA§\§A’I’HA NILAY./-\

V’ .._..;”m §\/§.A_l.N. 5′”-I (:1-eos\,9

{BY SR1 .JAGAD1.§ESH MUI\EI’)AR/–\GI. I—-ICGP. FOR R1: 5 »

AN D

I .

‘A’ BLOCK. AGR.H.A.RAI)ASI\RAEAIALLI
MAGAEM M/UN ROAD.

BANGALORE 79

SR! 3\/I.C.IA3ASA\=’AR/-XJ U. AIDV. FOR R2}

THE I.’)EPU’I”Y LABOUR

COMM1SSiOI\EI?:R AND ‘I’HI%2 –

APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UN[)ER ‘I’E-{I13 PAYMEZEVI.’ OF G-I2A’i.B1–_,0(::1<. vMA:…i;:a;swAA;a_A;n/_:

£3A.N(;A1;<;)I'.«1?.}\/1.<: r:3AsAvA1§_,AJAI;. ADV. FOR R2}

IN W.P.NO.l941»3O/2009

H -*r1¥¥1:«:.A ':)V'E:.PE'3*1.'x%j;i;A13oL5R

c0_M_MI,ss_1QNi~:R AND TH 1+:

AI3P{€1.E;A’I’i%3 AU’i’HOR}’l’Y

U1\EI)I9;’R’1§”I–iii P/\YE.\/3I§E\I’I’ or GR/»\’I’UI’l’Y ACT

i3ANG-AL0121::. RE(}iC)N–I

KAR;vn~:Ea:KA BHA’v’v’AI\§
” ¢BANNI£R£}}–lA”£’l’A R(.)Alj)
£?3A.NGA.I,ORl’356()O29 E ii

. . .RE3SPONI’) .

IN I’>.’:\aQ§–A9s32<iA/ 200:9' –

having setmaside the order of the Controlling Authorit.y_ and

remit.t.ed the pr()Ceedi11gs for consideration ai'resh_;"~«_Vox1

merits, did not pass an order over the (:oI1side:t'fc1.'ti()nVof "

applications to condone the delay"ii1"i'i.1iri_g iihe'-pfe3{ii.iQ1'1's..

before the Controlling Authority. :4I_.,__ea~1_f_1A.1ed h(:oi,m.se1"

that if a direction is issued. toiiliive.coni.r'o1iing:";AiifihVo'ri'iy to 'V

consider and pass orders onfheL-iapfii-i..Cat.io'fi":3.pohdone
the delay. the petitioner"Corgfiofziiicsiiv" be satisfied

with the order'.2_"

3. ” iI;e.avf1:1ed;’1Ieounselv’ i’o1′—..,I1h.eV 1’espondent.s~workme11
very faifly applications to condone the

delay in iiliiigg dipeifitiions before the Coiitrolling

J”«-,Aut?i.C°ri*:;Y. e.ou1d”a1»–..n.«’be directed to be considered and

p’a4sse’d.Lii1ereo11 by the said authority.

Reeordiiig the submission of the learned counsel.

igno€;ii1ing further sunrives for consideration in these

;$eti’T.iAo11s and are, aecordiiigly disposed of directing the

VCo11t:1′()1iing Authority, on remand. to consider and pass

M

(51

orders on the que$I”ic.m 0f(.~on(;1(‘)ni1’1g_{ the delay in prefc*.1’ri11g

the claim pe1:it,io1’1s.

Sd/-

1r1.

IUDGE5 §:fl i