M Jayaramaiah vs The Chief Traffic Manager on 2 February, 2009

 T  Amv.)

  - 2230? THE CONSTFTUTION OF INDIA, PRAYNO TO: QEJASH THE

" ~ vzmaususo Awmn msssn av THE um ADDITIONAL LABOUR

'    C<3~UR,T.*£-3ANGA1.ORE, IN REF. NO.8i20G2 OT. 22.9.2007 AT
  A NJNEXURE-K TO THE WRIT PETITION.

   -WETHIS PETITION CONHNG ON FOR PRLY. HEARING - '3'
O __GROUP, mas DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWENG:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 2"" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2009
BEFORE j % %
THE HON'B:.E Mmusrsce SUBHASH 3.AT§3éOA"%  ii    TO
wan PETITION NO.202.§'2m--.§9iQ"    5  %

BEIJNEEOI

2. M.JAYARA:vzAIAH

S/OMUNEYAPPA.

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 

RfAT MEENAKUNTE HQSUR,  _    

JALA HOBLI, DOD{)AJAL_A'«P0€3T,_ V j ~  

BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, *    

BANGALORE RURAL DE$_'fRI¢;'fT.v _ j'   _ 
 _  1 T  ;.PETlTlONER

(By sn: K. SRINIVASA ééj_$TM ;§_s.S_;°sQCiA'?E$,fJ§§}S.)

1. THE CH!EF4_TR§FF!C«.MANi*.GER
THE BANGALORE. METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT OORPOFPAHGN.
x.H.ROAO, SHANTHINAGAR.

 . BANZQALORE-27."-V . OOOOO <4 .

'    ..RESPONDENT

t tflfifl

‘3’?!’-t-‘HS V5I.5R¥T’.v’l3’ETiTiON ES FFLED UNDER ARTiCLES 226 AND

4. Admittedly. since 1996 to 2002. the petitioner has not
sought for reference. Further, fiiing of an appeal did preveqfihim
fxom raising dispute, particularly when his aplfifil
disposed of in reasonable time. There is K
explanation for the delay. Corporation’
the records are not avaiiabie.
produced any material to substaiiitéétte» hie” the ‘V

afidavit, petitionerhas not

Court. Rcmam 1I3g’ absent he 1335118 a

driver, such se1v’1:e. I

do not find any Labour Court.

Even the delay.

Hence, no tb.eawa1’d.

Amordingly, and same is dismissed.

Sd/=-

Judge