Rf:pI’escjz1é’;g:(1: fay its .. RESPGNBENT
~ .[.[‘_j’:.r.ii;.2-7.3.200′? made in I.D.No.56[2{)-08 on the £316 of the Presiding
_ _ €)i1″ice:r,.[ If~’friz1c’ipa} Labour Court, at Bangalore by the issue of a
‘writ cexffiorari or other Writ csr cinder, e:tc.,.
VT this day, tha Court maria the following:
§N THE HIGH CGURT 0;’ KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE}
QATED mzs THE 18th DAY 01:’ FEBRUARY
BEFORE ‘_ % ;
THE Ir~iON’Bi..Z£1 MR.JUS’I’ICE SUBHA_SH’v: $.A’§I:: 3 _
“;_vgf_,x1;____’_1; PE’1″ITION
BETWEEN:
N.V.Ramakrish11a
S,/0 N.R.Vc:nkatapathy
Agad 70 years
Residing at No.7, 3″‘ Cross V V
Nehmnagar, Seshadripurama-“” — 1
BANGALGRE560 ff’-,._P¥.33’FITi€)NE3R
{By szi.R.Na:aysi:§. .
AND:
Sadashzivanagar ‘Club «V ” W
Sadashivana,gar – -_
BAN{}ALGR’–E+56G G-80 ” ”
(£33; 1’A:]s»,S.N.,_1\k§111*t@Iiy Associates, Advs.)
WVfii1I%@fifiOfl is filed under Articles 226 8:. 22′? of ihe
C0nst:itution”g of’ India praying to quash Annex–A award
‘§’his Petition coming on for Preiizainaty Healing in ‘B’
if * .§<'Nw-
.3.
Q
This matter was heaxti at ictngth. Aftaf’-..bj}?1ea1ing
SI’i.S0mashel<1ar, ieamed Counsei apgaeaxing for
can instructions submitted that, respondtant fiéjg
Rs.30,fl(}()/~ towards fail and
persuasion submitted that, it J
amount is acceptable by the pblfifiaper 49-"
2. In View of the §€ififf5§:):’1.Vsta;{1ds disposed of
subject to Iespcjidcnt vVi”~£a2:..V’5(“}.{)(}O/~ towards fuii
and fina} ofglie petitioner – workman
Within th«E::?:iAaie. <:)Vi:1f£::§c€:ipt of copy' sf this order.
AE:coi"difi.g1y{. ' ssfands modified,
Sd/-
Judge