IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARKATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10'5"" DAY OF' JULY, 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.In;OI«' A'
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5370l2008 A
BETWEEN: T M
I M/S KARNATAKA AGRO INDUSTRIES.
CORPORATION LIMITED *
HEBBAL, BANGAL.ORE~ 550 0:241
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRE€T(3i §'--
ON AOOL. CHARGE. I 5
« PETITIONER
(By.Sxfi ; B :I:AIv.»AI;sIéIA.Ig II, A.I>I}'." M
- 2
I»
F?
Y VBHASKARACHAR » _ A
s/O VEERABADEEACPMR ' '
MAJOR '»,; {' O=O
RESIDENT OFv.I'$!Q_.98/3._' .
OPP. _ MIDDLE SCHOOL D'QWi'§Ef BAZAR
YELAHANKA, *
BANGALORE~ .556 .064; .
. ., " ._ '- RESPONDENT
IqIéL.é"'VU/s.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PE*IfI*I*IOI¥:'I3Rf.IéjI"<:éYIIsIO. THAT THIS HOBPBLE COURT MAY BE
pLI;AsEOvI'TO':":*§;2I'IcI< DOWN THE: FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
,_* 'V 'O:c.NO.'I«eI593/'zoos VIBE ORDER DATED 4.10.2008 VIBE
. ..jg..ANI«I,ExuRE'* W-;. on THE FILE OF CNINL, BANGALORE.
_ PETITION COMING ON FOR ORBERS THIS DAY, THE
-OOOR? MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petifioner is questioning the order in C.C.No. 1859812008
passed on 4.10.2008.
2. The respondent complainant had ‘A
complaint under Section 260 of 7._for
punishable under Section 29 of the Etinciugaiai ‘}’1%)1s;pute%sfAct;
interafia on the ground that, the patseed in V’
Refezence No.34/1995 hasnot beefl’ 11.1′ thisctegaiti the
Labour Department by its had a11thonzed’
the complainant to of the power
under Sections. .1__9»of ‘éhejttvjmjushiai Disputes Act.
3. The is that, the petitioner has « Since already there is
authozization $at;1ted_ ‘vin7.fa{r’o£1r of the complainant and the
116611 has been shown that, he has
compI_1’ezi_ titre award. Prima facie the ailegation shows
the mange V pggiegabxe under Section 29 of the h1dustn:a’ 1
Disputestt Act; However, if the petitioner has any grievance, he
.1 :53; before the Ieamed Magistrate.
. amp!”
— “”:Aeoo:*diI1g1Y. this petifion stands dismissed.
Sd/.;
J11 fig-3