High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K M Niranjana Murthy vs Gem Properties Pvt Ltd on 7 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K M Niranjana Murthy vs Gem Properties Pvt Ltd on 7 July, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Malimath
  _ 3RI,Bf.B"1£gIN

IN THE HIGH CGURT as KARNATAKA AT aANGA;;o§f;LE:T:'% %%

DATEEI THIS THE 7?" DAY GF JULY 2:369     '

PRESENT;~~._ 4 V
THE H(3N'BLE MR. JUsficéifi.L'.A_MI;N§U-fiéfiffi 
AN.I§.,,.,..V    X '
THE Hc;:z:<:*8:_E Mg. 3us1 1z:i:Aa:~i_s:-3311 aéA;,:§émj§x

w.A. m.aé5_QE 22::Q8'*{L~~frEa)
sewveew:     

SR1 K M §aéi'i2A'N3A;x;A ;v1Lsm*H"v'  .% _ 
5:0 K B MAE§ULA~PPA s<;ENs_<:E;zE 90$?
HIRIY?.iRt}."HO'BLI,CH'I!§f<Zfii.R--AYf5zi<Af~!AHALLI TQ
Tw_isV**--:s«é_:rVict 3  V  ~ 

 ~ _  .  .  AWELLANT
(BY SR§V;'B;E.ID!§>i1Rfl'M&IAH, Aman)

Gem p%s<o%pem   m:
J g_No~5 AND  ASATVHYAMANCSALA INDUSTRIAL
 '&€«..f:f.:*~=~k'a*-E, TUM¥<'L'$'%?, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR

 ,  J   RESPONDENT
* %%k%{av«:s:;sk.swAMv at SINGH, A£3\fS.,)

*3?

"¥;Hi§3 W13. FILED UZSEC 4 OF THE Kfi.R¥\§ATAKA HIGH

  fciovar ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CJR§ER PA$$ED IN
 ' ' ,  .WRIT P'ETITIQ¥'i ¥\iO.E?5?6/2906 DATED 20/H2008,

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS CGMING ON FOR REPORTENG

 ' sE':"rLer~m:*r "rms cm', MAi\£3UNATH.3. mmveaao "mg

FGLLOWING I --



("<3

JUDGEMENT

The appellant was working under the re4s.pVT?..L<3r«;:ii§ei.'v=ec§ii';

fer reinstatement with continéiiizfif af séiviéfie' withcut
backwagas. A A

2. Chaiienging ‘arciér:_of””t§;§é:;–‘La*i’2our Court writ

patiticn was tfxe %-;rriéVpi.::i%§iér”V.’a7:’ad~’:simiiariy warkman
aiso fiiézgi a_n.r:i£ii?a;–«v§:rit p4eji’itign being aggrieved by the nan-
grareting hf. {he

‘g3; T1;1e5.;e;”fwe’V’ wirit petitions were heard by the

fii’e=a;i’v_’;Vie;f the Management the management went up in

in Wfls. No. ‘R14/2088, which appeal cama ta be

..r.i.S§missed an 19-11-2008. The present appeal is fiiaé by the

‘V werkman chaiienging the arder passed by the Labour Caurt

<57"

as weii as the learned Single Eudge for not gfeeting

hackwagee.

4. We have heard the Eearned ceunseifér

5. Gr: peruse? of the e$éiAde’r;{*e”-.e!et«

appefiant empioyee befere the Lai:;t:g1r “.€_fi.eurf i_:vf§A1.Ae

has not let in evidence to s’h§$¢, thetn. “been

employed during the gifaf’d~.§;€s’~».L¥f.j§.sVV t}fiefi1p1oyment during

the pendenesy the Labour Court, the

Labour:’:Ceurt «véeavrned Single Judge were justified
in not grajififteifig

V__§A6′; We”ee h’ot any reason te interfere with the

Verde}; the Labour Court as weif as ieemee Singie

3u_é’5g_e.1 “A€evefdV§7ihg’iy, the present appeefi is dismissed.

Sd/-=
Fudge

W/””

Iudqe

VVK