IN Tflfl HIGH GOUT OF KARNAEAKA AT BANGAQRE
SATED THIS THE 2?" any OF JUNE 2eo3*Wgfy
BEFGRE A '
THE HQN'BLB ER. JUSTICE K:BHAK?HA§fiIsALAjV"
WRIT PETITION No.4389f2G65I<¢m5§§)_~"~VT
BETWEEN
I SR1 R sURENDRA_BABu V
sfo LATE R RAJAGQEAI'
AGED ABOUT 35 YRS W"
R/AT NO.G--1424 IV V 2 ,»
HAL EAST EXTN.,~TG_3SHIPI
Mmmmmmmm:m$Iu5 '*=
BANGALORE 37, -' '
,. .... -_T=, w,. «_-_ 7... PETITIONER
(BY SR1 N SHAMANNA, AQV.)--
I §M£S HINBUSTRN RERQNAUTECS LTB
_f%BagGALoRE"cx BANGALORE 1?
. " RE§fi BI IIS MANAGER{PERSONNEL}
"w.waLIARE".
'.*.' 'a.~ RESPONDENT
:5: 5RI.$jvTsHA$TRI, ADV.)
IHIS WRIT PETITION IS ETLED UNDER ARTICLES
‘,226,& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION op INDIA PRAYING TO
._”«CALL3« FOR. RECQRDS or THE COURT BELOW IN
_; MA§NO.?6f2003 (RI THE FILE cw” THE an: ABEL. CITY
=__” CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY {CCB~11} Afifl ISSUE
u”~WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS STAYING THE
“a ENFGRCEMENT OF THE EVICTION ORDER DT.5.7.2003 OF
THE ESTATE OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT COMPRNY RNB
SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DT.2?.2.2006 OF THE
HON’ELE DISTRIC? JEDGE TILL THE PETITIONER IS
REINSTATED INTO SERVICE SF THE RESPONDENT COMPANY
AND ALLOTTEB THE PETITIONER WITH A COMPANY’S
QUARTERS OR TILL THE PETITIONER’S INDUSTRIAL
DISPUTE IS FINALLY DECIDED IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE Ame EQUITY & ETC. g .
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR Paetimiwaky
HEARING IN ‘E’ eaeup THIS DAY, Tfifi cover Mafia THE
FOLLOWING: =2 “{“a’%.~
The petitioner ‘in this petition}”ha3i
sought for quashing order,date@ 5;7i2G53 made
in Case No.EVC,Q;/20fl3″ehixthe fiiév of the
Estate Officer, HifideStae:Aef6fiautics Limited,
Bangalore «at”.AfinexQrew5GTa_aad the judgment
datga’i”é?;é;_%2o”:%jé :fi”ivt.A.No.76/2003 on the
filexivof Vthie? City Civil Judge:
BengalofeVfCityi;
‘i–QLea§ned counsel for the petitioner
saemita teat the petitioner, who was working
‘g as “_$ecurity Guard in the respondentw
VV_«3rganization, was dismissed from service, on
17.3.2001. Thereafter, eviction proceeding
was initiated against the petitiener under
eub–seetion {lj of Section 5 eaf Public
Premises {Eviction of unauthorised Occupants}
Act, 1971. (for short ‘PP Act’). After the
l\/
petitioner was dismissed from sarviC@,,”he,
raised an industrial dispute before théWfifisfi¥; .
Addl. Labour Court in IDR NQ,;53f2fiGi §%,fihe
file of the II Pddi. Labouf,CQurf[flLé£efi bn’g
the said. case was trafisfgrréd ‘to 1Iu$§@§ifl
Labour Court an&’ it _:Wés, #fin$§%e@: as
Z.Q.No.66/2005 and §§§rdfl¢a§§-t§tb§_pa8sed on
32.12.2006 in f3vou§g$§ fih% §¢£ifégnér and the
order of _§i§§%$8$l’w:ba%§fi& W$gain$t the
Petiticn§§ wgfiflggg §%iflé;:Tfl€ respondent was
diyectefii~to §éflin$téfe’:the petitioner in
servicen “gAsVvagainst }the award made by” the
‘_Lab0uxfl”C0urt; =t§e _respondent has challenged
“-:néfa:s§:am%._%5;fi.9§z.9.No.55o9/2007 {L—TER) and the
same miS ‘@&fi&ihg. It is the case of the
petitiQnér Ehat since the petitioner has got
‘éu’award in his favour for rewinstatement, he
_is éfifitled to Continue to stay in the
ufitémises and therefere, the impugned order of
uéviction and the impugned judgment made in MA
No.76/2003 on the file of the City Civil
L.”
Judge, Bangalore City, are not sustainable in
law.
Sri S.V.Shastri, learfied counsel jet the
respondent submits that tee petitiener isaln_
unauthorised occupation sf the quarters and hel
is not even paying the”r€nt,. It is further
submitted that ssl agsinstfgthe order of
eviction, the petitieher filed an appeal under
sect,i§1{{“9ltr5»;>f¢ Actwvxn MA No.76/2003 on
the lfileé of lt5§¢:Qity Civil Judge and the
prayer le.thera§pesl was not for quashing the
.H m order of eviefiisfi made by the Estate Officer,
‘_ but the eetitioner had sought for injunction
restraining the respondent–company from
a interfering with his peaceful pessession of
Wlrthegofficial quarters in No.G.l424 at HAL East
“Extension Township, Msrathahalli Post,
Eangalore. It is further contended that since
the very framing of the appeal in M A
No.76/2003 was bad in law, the appeal should
have been dismisEefWMty’ the appellate Court
instead of -dwelEing’ upon the merits of the
case. _g ‘
Perused the copy’ of the mefiorandfisfVef’
appeal of the petitioner in Ms Q§;és/2¢e3;oh;”
the file of the City
City. Though the hgrosisimn her “lew is
mentioned as Seetien Bier the §P=Rct: but the
centents of theh-s?§§si#fl%%h_like a suit
describing the Vhplaintiff and
de§e’t;é:’am§f.Hariég” gagged .”1£’h’e sun at Rs.1,000/-
under tsectienzhfififcjv of the Karnataks Court
Fees and hSuits’fVéluaticw: Act and gsrayed for
eérmenent. injunction. Ck: that score alone,
V*etheta§neaihsheuld have been dismissed.
h’ fkeefiing in View that the very’framing of
he the “appeal is not in the proper form and
7 subsequent to dispesal of the petitioner’s
rappeal by the City Civil Court, an award came
to be passed in favour of the petitioner and
the same is challenged by the respondent in
the writ petitien before this Court, it would
L/W
the lower appellate Court an 31.12008 with§dm};”‘~«.V.”‘
notice.
No costs . * ‘;
\YI’3’_’§:)[–