High Court Karnataka High Court

B Bhramappa vs The Labour Commissioner on 11 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B Bhramappa vs The Labour Commissioner on 11 March, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
ml

IN 'IRE I-Hf}?! COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT 

mmn mtsmn um mares'  y 

BEWRE

«hwy-on

mza  am. mgr-«:2 T 

w.P.nc3xs92w :z<io«5
flimsy ' V

FIl"§'7._' 'II' c' ' __

w.p.no.15 "f.€:J&.{I.-RE$ ) 
wp no 6925 or 2ooEkM

 %   conmtasxomsn

 

 we THE mamcmn 'rm; GHED LE'B'(')U'fi
u   ezmzonmmonmn nmumnom
 ACT-1986, DAVANGEE

THE 'IAHHILDAR

------ -----------A--,nn. _lfl_n.Dbi§'

HARIIIAHA uu..un
DAVANGERE DISTRICT

u-nu-Ju-u IIIH-|Ifl'\

1 ,  It

[By E-1'1 -.I&[3.fiDEEBH MUNDARGI - GOVT ADV  Ki-ii

 



THIS WP. FILED puma 'I'D QUABH 'rHI-:j o12nER
D"'1*. .a1.a.r-64 massarv 31:' THE I=ma'r 

LRBOUR COHIEIEBIOHER AND THE  THE

CHILD LABOUR [PROHBIIYOII &   

mvmemm VIBE .-ummxax.
vmmnnxm.   

'WP H0 15'? OFQOOG

BETWEEN

13 BHRAHAPPA Y  

am CHE %"  
mun maowr so vm-as
.1..'!.l.F.4l.1FAT!II,1_fl.LLA.£§E--...  '
HARIEARA 'J£R;LUK

UH. '1-uu'       'V 

[By8mt.N:=&lfi;l_'»1'Ii£.'i»!hHIi'11iVfi€§ -ar:v.;
 '  L %
1   cn:"§:........Iri-me:-:.1mI=.
  mmxmamspmmon

tmgnmmmmmm nmuwnom new mac
 mvmemm

.~}I.-'-';E'».'»'F..'-.'.'3.'>a 'l'.'J.-IIK

.  ADAVMIAGERE DISTRICT
A   'A :3'  Bmmvmm
.  fiffl.H 
RESIDENT OF AIUENEYA BRICK

mnus*rm. 3.110.231 1c

 VILLAGE, manna

mum. mvnnmnu: um'.

ii  
{ray an-.a.ta.rmE-ssa """1'1"'i'.:r':?€.'rI - am.-ram: ma R14 3



mm wr mun mama TO QUABII 'rnET"o1mm .

M.i:"'i-.§.2&"r-1 ?a"'|$3EB B'! THE R1,  'T-QUE

oommaxonnm Ann TI-IE mspmcmn, 
mficutjfi [T7""R(")FIF3'IT'it'i'1i MT:   ,i$:=5a,

DAVANJKGERE. IN CASE RI). PRODUGEIJ H_]§3REWIT'H  

mmsnr wnrr rmmcims  Mca1¢%&_« Emu 

PPiEL  H%.RI.'"u'G I1'! 3 QRQUP 

COURT IEAIJE TI-IE 

 

1.

1.. _ …….n….._ .n_a.-.n

Tm oz-um unuuu
31 .3. in writ pa1:|na’ * nu.
oondugtad attachod to the auflnrmuo
ufiiler “oz: Child Labour (Prohibition ma

% %% . [for man; ‘the Act’) and submitted

1…#’;¢..,;. AV _…_ I. _ -u-.–_n-u-pt .—–no-u¢u=uIuI IIra–

.. HIIEIJ. 91.3. Ll: .l.B1fl.I-ll», uu.nl_uu_y was uuunuwuu

notices were served” on thn petitioner’ ‘ .

A. that, the: petitioner has ramninnd shunt.

«’ an the report of the Inspector. thc authorities

‘ contends that, though notice

the mini Act. Considering the name. the

paused an under impouixag Ru.S2D,l’JOOI- u

*5.-…-*.i$:’-..-..r.

3. Learned oounpel fi:’rzi__ ”

4- n

r$ Hi:

1: :nnInaA ‘1}

u-ua-ub-:.nns turn
“IIIW -IICI-IIEII I.

11%|:

4|–Ilufllldinlfi

cr-

an’
In

3

know oniy when=a__ .1;noi:iée’wmfi issued is
par flumexure-D lmnunt arf
Rs.2fl,fl00._f~-‘ It to aim

sghgittéd the owner of the
%c1~.m –

H ” V’ ‘V pefitinnar, he ramn.u:1a’ :1 absent.

Z Tm SN reapondem whn is implanded in

“vé.P.Ha.1s7;o5 is stated In his the owner of the Eric]:

E Itxluatry. However. pm-oeodinga are iniflataad against

-I-‘nan
LII-fl

mu,/1r»”-

77″ »

(

whsthnr the notice was dub’

aclumwledglzmnt. I am of the opinion

Va

5. the: writ

.’_….u…._..-._.-_.;..l –..JAnnunn «Ian L “1 V. _
N-‘.a_ > A ‘. V alums: Lulu

mnttaer is to.A%”t1ié:§i; ~ iar irurn
oaraixiesmtion. tad. to ‘Hana
nation to 3?’ raopondem.

1n.«.=1.=_a. hrdan following the

“=’ U:

:2. .2′

X!
ah-‘