High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Sajeedha Banu W/O Mohammed … vs The Deputy Conservator Of Forest on 13 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Sajeedha Banu W/O Mohammed … vs The Deputy Conservator Of Forest on 13 August, 2008
Author: H.G.Ramesh
.P. J0850/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARHATAKA AT 

ammo mm mm 1315! mm or wens? 2oos._  I 

swans M _ I
THE HOIPBLE mz..ms'rIcII: n,(§.nAngI:nr3nf    -

 

BETWEEN:

SMT. SAJEEDHA BANU
W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

R/O ASHRAYA HOUSE

SANTHINAGAR '- ._ I '   ._ 
CHIKMAGALUR  V  --  "  '....lfl!;TITIOflE'.R

(BY SR!   A§3%.:§3LiI=I*I*E';j
1 THE;ijE15U'I*I*I.5coz~Ié.ERVA'I§oR_0-9 FOREST

CHIKMAGALUR'Vi}WISI,Gi%i_ 1- '
cHIK~IAc3I\I.uI=:_* *  

2 THE RANGE F'oI2EsT'*QFFi¢ER
cI~t'IxI.I.AGALuR_RANGE FOREST OFFICE

 "  ..... 

 I i'§eANGE'IroI:éEsfr MOBILE SQUAD

"  "g.HIxI§A,QALLI.I§.1.. ..R.E8P0!lDER'!'8

'ms WRi"F"¥'ETI'I'iON IS 911,213 UNDER ARTICLES 226 85

 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
"'v.'l"HE ..AWARI3~ DATED 13.03.2008 PASSED BY THE LABOUR
  'GHIKMACEALUR, !N ¥.D.R.NO. I6/2006, AS PER ANN--A.

 *fI'£II s PE'I'I'I'ION COMING on FOR PRELIMINARY

 'I~I.gIe.I{:Is:G THIS DAY, THE mum' MADE THE FOLLOWING:



m&&$ 
.Q_&Q.§.£

In this writ petition, the petitioner is 

the award dated 13.03.2008 (Annexure-A)    A "

the Labour Court, Chikmagalur,  mes.midis/dzoes}t,  

By the impugned award, the  :7.'

the refermlce made by the  
10(1)(c) of the II1dusu'ia1:*'Dxisputés:. A ('t11e";%ct')
on the ground that    years in
raising the dispfuieg   xlthe dispute
had become   referred the
dispute  determine as to
whether    the petitiener by the

respondents  3.1--.0A3.  was lawful and whether

the 28 years was justified.

2. the learned ceunsel for the

pceusim perused the impugned award at

. .. V ‘ <'\;mexu;e-~A.

. There is no acceptable explanation by the

-fgetiticxner for the delay of about 27 years in raising the

W

dispute. The Labour Court, on consideration of the

matter and by relying on the judgments of the ~ V

Supreme Court, has held that the dispute ” 1

stale and accordingly, has rejectt: tiWtl1e«

my opinion, the finding A.

that the dispute had become Siz%ié»is
not warrant i11te1fere2a:c<:_ ..A.extf.eiért1xmary'
jurisdiction of this & 227 of

the Consfitufion'

Petitann '

Iudgs

Sh1/