IQA 3 IQA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF QBER, 2009
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.GOPALA GOWDA
AND
THE HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATE={._ ~ _ "
WRITAPPEAL NO251/2009{LK_]HJ"---.:. A
13_BLTEE_E£;
SR1 M D MARAPPA
S/O LATE TADIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62. YEARS
C/O SOUTH INDIAN ESTATE AND
GENERAL WORKERS UNION,
SHANKARAPUARA, CHIKAMA(I'ALUR«'
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.'/6/7 " *
III BDOCK, 2ND MAIN, -- V 1
THYAGARAJA NAGAR..BANGALCEE{*28'- _ ; v._. APPELLANT
[By
AND :
I DIVISIONAL CONTROLELER KSRTC
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN
~ EIEERESENTED BY-ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
" ,KSRTc: 'CENTRAL OFFICE, KHROAD,
' BANG-IALOER"~
2 r THE LABOUR: COMMISSOINER,
KARMIKA BVHAVAN ,
BANNEROHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENTS
A WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF' THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
_ _ 'AOT*A.Vr'I=:A:rING To SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT
- '_j..D__PETI'IjION 16214 DATED 12/11/ .
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, Gopala
Gowda J., delivered the following: _.
JUDGMENT
The appel1ant–workman has questioned
remand passed by the learned Singlefludge-‘_’l
the award for the reasons recorded 1:0
of the impugned order challenged’ .appeald.c’o’uld be’
seen from the order of reference’, * points dispute
referred to the Labour Court State”-(internment that it
would not have been«.gj;’;.pro:priate forltlf1_e.,leajrned Single Judge
to remand the riiattér, proper adjudication
of the matter me] of the Industrial Dispute
Act. Havinglregard of dispute raised by the
Workman; shouiduvhavpe raised by a trade union after
obtainingvl1i.s’«au.thorities under Section 36 of ID. Act before
the jiirisdictioifiapifd conciliation officer. The conciliation
Tljproceedingsare bad in law and consequently the State
ought not have referred the dispute to the
Court for its adjudication. Therefore, the reference
A by the State Government itself is invalid, on this ground
\
TN/”
_ 3 M
itself, the Labour Court ought to have rejected the order of
reference Without going into the merits of the case and this
legal aspect is not examined by the Labour Court, however
the learned Single Judge at the instance of the corporatgion
has examined the correctness of the award _
being remanded to the Labour Court after qua_.si’1irrg~ same. * V.
Since the question regarding the validity {of
the Labour Court in respect v’of«–.._the
definition of Section 205) which is..’n«.gtl_:raised by a
trade union as required in which ought
to have been gone’ ._.into° Single Judge
notwithstanding the respondent/ Corporation
has not raised’-.._thisVlgrorun’d_”-~”‘in the proceedings before the
Labour x_For”the…re«asor1s stated supra, the writ appeal
faliisg impugned in this appeal and award in the
liable to be set aside and quashed.
-…’_j’:v.Aceordingly,’lthe order of the learned Single Judge is hereby
and quashing of award is legal and valid for the
‘:fl1*easori that dispute raised by the workman falls within the
hi’//’