High Court Karnataka High Court

B M Badigar S/O Mahadevappa vs The Managing Director on 25 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
B M Badigar S/O Mahadevappa vs The Managing Director on 25 May, 2011
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
-7?

ORDER

After the proceeding was remitted to th€VV’EI«1b~{§dd1.

Labour Court, Bangalore, by order (it.

W.P.No. 15409/ O5, AnneX.J, notieep _ was ‘r1.”o’t= to

petitionepworlnnan since a submissizzen was _rr1ade”‘bjf-the

learned counsel for the reé_p’Qr1der1″t~Corporation ..that tire’

workman was not ref_i.nstatedC:”was..r1’o–l.ongier Working
in the Corporation; the labour court
proceeded ._pas{§’VV’ 8/1/2010 in
Hence this writ

petitiorrbypplthe an.

2′; .__Learr1e_(l “for the responder1t–Corporation

is eandid in-» her submission that a Wrong submission

was before the labour court by the learned Counsel

for the Corporation, stating that the

xVo’1*km.t’ah’Was not reinstated and was not working in the

H Corporation, though factually the petitioner was serving

‘”‘the”Corporation pursuant to interim order of this court in

V’ WP. 15409/o5.

‘\.w.)
2

3, If that is so, the award of the

suffers from Violation of principles natural juet£e’e.’antl’_

therefore calls for interference.

4. In the result, write’petition_”lS allo*,:?eadF_
dt. 8/1/2010, Annex.K, the in Adar.

Labour Court, Bangalore, anldl’the”V4proeeeding
remitted for consideration-V–.wiin of the order cit.
16/7/2009 bass an award in

after extending reasonable

accordance ” 1

opport1;ni’ty_ of hearing . t1<1.eVpaf'rties concerned.

Parties 'are:_:'rep~r_esented by learned Counsel and

thereforellare d1',reotve<l "lo be present before the III Addl.

V, __ Court' on"~~l'8/6/20 l 1, without further notice.