High Court Karnataka High Court

Gangasetty S/O Thimmasetty vs The Government Silk Farm on 11 April, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Gangasetty S/O Thimmasetty vs The Government Silk Farm on 11 April, 2008
Author: S.R.Bannurmath & Gowda


IE THE BIG}! mum on xuzxarmm arr .

DATED rms THE 11:!’ DAY qEgPm;;;’

rnmsmni

T1-IE HOWBLE am. JUBTH :E.. _s.R§ i;

Mi!) _
ms aowsm ma. msfirm ;_4§.n;.§m_*.§Ga;vALA GOWDA
Writ AgpeA _ a1 Ae§_

BETWEEK: H

GAEQGASETFY .3
3/0 THIMMASWW.

Ac;EDasa0U*r%5o-¥.E1;Rs 5’1″ , ‘-
Rffifi’. i{ADASINGARAB_$.L.L1″ « . ‘ «
§<:EMPANAHA_LL1– PO€3'i' * -» %
HUTRIDURGA«H£;}-BL! ' _ ' ._j _
I-{UNIGAL TALUK, 'rUMKu-R D132'.

– -_ APFELIANI’

«.13? s;:::5–s.{ S i”wL£\.IK, Af.)V.}. ….. .. .

1 ~_ “G~_OVE’R?§ME£’3T’SfLK FARM
A KEMPANA%iX.ELI, KUMGAL TALUK
“FUN KURDESTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SERICULTURE
EXTE-.7.}_I?5IC)N OFFICER

, V ‘ms DERECTOR

~ V *S§eRiCUL’I’URAL BEPARTMENT
MULTISTGREYED £3331 LEHNG
1 DR AMBEDKAR ROAI)
BANGALORE 560 001.

” THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

COMMERCE AND INBUSTRIES DEPT,
GOVEREMENT SECRETAWAT
MULTISTUREYED BU{L{)IN(}
DRAMBEDKAR ROAD

3

petition as the eourxlsel appearixzg for the appel1eI_j’:L b

tmlxceded that in View of ihe p1’011d;111ee1i1e1’iL am f

Court in U.P.sRm us mm: mm (2m¢3′{53 mg

in the absellee of proper explaxlatiul}, 1_7ejecELii3::1T(ji’Ie:1’e1’e11(,’e

by the Labour Cazmrl eazxvxzeii exyilil.

2. Apart from; uAé’1″gt;:VV’ve01;side1ed. the
fact that illem adduced by the
appe11a11L:v’V1$efo’n::.: prove that he had in
fact woI’ked. Secliml 25? of the LD.

Act. f-fix’ the appeliant velielnellily

etjia.te1’ie1ed?«.”i!e1;iEe.even Uidugll rein:-;tai,e1neuE, was not given,

appellaiit £3211′ some etmlpelxsatiolx as heid by

‘ the H01_1’bie~SL’tf:;}1e111e €luu1’t; in lnany cases. It is to be

” i’i1Vt.vv>’E::AL1_{11::.§t;,…§},1*c’. basicafly, app<~:ila'nt had failed {.0 prove thai.

had ..;$so1'ked for 240 days to aU.1'a(.:i, Seeiiuzl 25 F of the

VT –Act and since no nlatetriai is also made available even

LL 9' this appeal, we do not find any good gmund to illlerfeie

wiih the order 91' the leaxned Single Judge. Writ ap

rcjt-:t:Lt:d withuut colxsidering IA 1[£J8" R11' «_cVu11t;i'J_iV:'a:1ic;1'1–:V0f

dciay of 112 days approaching this