K Manjunath S/O. Late Kempaiah … vs The District Registrar Of … on 11 November, 2008

-1-

xx THE amen counm or Kananmaxa Am 3ANALcfiE *_

DATED THIS THE 11?" DAY OF NovEM3ERg'20¢sT*%'

BEF0R3.»w-

THE HQN'BLE MR.JUSTICE ézasévi §AzE$R 7°'wT

REVIEW PETITEONvN§}2$2AGE_2O§8:” ”

BETWEEN :

1, K. MANJUNATH _ ._v;

s/0 LATE KgM9A:AH sHETTx
A335 ABOUT 41 $SARSg _=;g_ ‘3
NO.23?O[2 fiARJAN’$¢REE?,”*”~~
HUNsUR””.*~*~’.-KW. ?’u’ »

2 B.R.RAMAGBANDRA,” ___
S/O;LRTE R;RAMeArAH*
AGEDyABQTU,4ef¥EARs’
No.MIG.g9o/A_’_”.T
3RB_cRos$,’3THVMAIN
;’H’_BLQCK,”RAMAKRISHNAGAR

V Mvsbfim”;

aB ?JMQHAN,s/0 THIMMEQOWDA
‘.633 ARON? 41 YEARS
‘RENRGANAHALLI
ANKAmAHALL: POST
nTCHmw¢HANAKATTE HOBLI
~ ‘K,R.NAGAR,
*MY$ORE DISTRICT. .., PETITIONERS

.t;Q.

‘fwg§sm_msmmmmw,Ama)

1 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR GE’
REGISTRATIONS, ._
ROOM NO.8 IL’-*.C.OFFICE
BUILDINGS, MY.S’0RE

i\}

PRINCIPAL sECRETARr,V,

REVTEQHE DEPT. *,I’_

GOVERNMENT OF,KARNATAKA.’g’ », .
M.s.BUILDING,qBANGALQRE._,:I%RESQQNDEMTS

(By Sri M.KEsHAvA ggbax} Agar ‘7

THIS REVIEW PETIIION IS ?ELED U/G 47 RULE
I OF’ c§Q,””3R&I:N@g,sGR fREvI§w’ 0? THE ORDER
DATEE o2~Q5+2QQ8’pAssEQ’IN we NO.l2075/2006 ow
THE EILE kc; uTHE .HoN+aL3 HIGH csuaw OF
KARNATAKA,*EaNgALQRE;v _–

IHIs’REvIgwC@EIITIbN COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY; IHE COUfiTuEASSED THE FOLLOWING:

‘ I”.ThgVpetitioners have sought review of the

oraér 5:{§w§§}No.I2o75/2006 <3ated 02.06.2008,

'IwhezébfIfi§is Csurt has quashai the order of

'qtfié'.Lébour Court in Ref.No.89/2003 dated

*I3C,Oi.2G06 and has remitted the matter back to

.fihe Labour Ceurt for fresh disposal in

accordance with law and in the light of the

observations made therein.

I
' E
?i

-3…

2. The only contention urged 3byt;thsru

learned counsel for the getitionersfiiskthatt

the observations made in para 5 of the ¢:d§:,I

with regard to the wage sltps may have afiyerret

effect on the case plead§&i§y théVfiétitipners
before the Labour’ Qourtig tt§fiis_ cdrrt has
observed that the wage rliré réiikgCog by the
Labour court fl§?d’tn§tf itfiiéatt that the
petitioner§_uh§r%tfi ‘£rérQ§fidéfits in the writ
petitiofiéH fiattrwErke@”fi;4Og®§éys in 12 months
immediatélg’firefiéflifiglthé date of termination.

V5? figfiing htérfi the learned counsel for

t%étp§rtie$gff*am of the View that all the

>’°’conténti¢ns cf the parties should be kept open

“”tfafid the Lébour Court has to consider each and

°efiery_$uestion urged on behalf of the parties

fion_<its merits and in accordance with law.

t"Therefore, the aforesaid observations are

-4…

hereby deleted and all contentions of” thé

parties are kept open.

Review petition :s__…._d1s–g§;«:ise-d’;,» fig

accordingly.