The Chikmagalur District … vs The Joint Registrar Of on 23 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS 23*" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JuSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN   

wp NO.34075 OF 2009(CS--RES} 
BETWEEN : C   

THE CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CO"OPERATIV.E A'

CENTRAL BANK LTD. (C.D.C.C. BAN'i<Z4_LTD.'}._ 

RATHNAGIRI ROAD,   " .
CHIKMAGALUR~577}.U1,  _ --- Q_ 

By its Managing Director   ,   PETITIONER

(By SR1 JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL,'SF§;C'O.U§§§f5E.I;   V
FOR SRI M.S.RAc3HAvE_NDRA I2R_ASAD, ADV.)  

I THE JOINTR_EGISTRAR"O.,F7CO--OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
MYSOREDIVISIOi'd','  
 PALACE BLJILDIf\iGS,__,_____v
*MYSORE;'%_

2 7-.C.M. R;,A'NIECO\Az~DA,
S/,O".-B.MA-NjJE':=GOwDA,
I AGED A_P3OUjT 51 YEARS,
3 CLERK,-C.,D.C.C.BRANCH, TARIKERE,
A  'I»TAR1KER.E,
' ..jE»R.CHIC,I<MAGALuR DISTRICT  RESPONDENTS

” I”-4″_V:.,,(_I3’y?~’SAiV1T,R.D.VIJAYA, AGA FOR R1)
I{£5yR SR1 MAHANTESH S. HOSMATH, ADV.FOR R2)

0″*”””

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES_..__226 8:
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASLHTHE
ORDER DATED 04.11.2009 PASSED BY THE –‘j'”H.ONr’i3’LE
KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING””–RVE\{ISI_O’~N

PETITION NO.92/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.–A”‘BANKV’ASA PDERLW’

ANNEX-N. AND ETC.

THIS PETHTON COWHNG ON Fon.PéHjwfinARy NEARTNG

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THErF_OLLOWING:– V’

,ORDERT*’

In fins vvflt petnjon the petfijoner ha; prayed for a mnitin
the nature of certi;>’ra__ri ..iDntA;;’rDi’nd order of stay
granted by as per
Annexure–K_…a.nd”~.::PthPi?311I:.; 4.11.2009 passed by
Karnataka Eisangaiore (for short Tribunal’)

as per Annexure.:N.., I . I

V’ ‘;2.v.”TT1Qi,,'”3eC’O..Ud respondent is an employee of the petitioner.

The -péi.:yi_itiVon:e:’r=…t;y4DL’trhejr resoiution dated 28.02.2009 demoted the

P”~’secondPr.espo.r;~det.itTDfrom the post of Superintendent to the post

~-«T..j’jVo’f.__’Store–Keeper. Aggrieved by this action of demoting the

.respondent, he raised a dispute under section 70 of the

C} \ja’*\./A\./

“The enriier litigzitiom; between the
parties are not in dispute. The second
respondent who had questioned the decision of
the i’:’:£lI’l£lgCI1′}CI1[ dated 2.03.2009 in Dispute_§”””i
No.i771/2()(i)8»2()09 has withdrawn it.
intended to file a fresh dispute tu’t’d ‘arlo1i1ii_ted_1iiyi
he hes sought permission toiiitttie
eariier dispute with liberty’ to E’iieTa_V.i’i’esi1 o:.1ei’.i’
The first respondent has eti)ii1′.ai:det’ed his
and aiiowed / Pbflitiited Elitn’ \ti(ii-T’\t}ii’th’d1″21vvithee
dispute reserving !ib”erty– to ;:1 jidisptltfl.

It appears that the…Pe’ti’t.it>iieAr:,not

_,

opposed ro’;a, the n1e1i”itt>=7t’iie’d A ‘mi = the: second

ijespt’Jniden’t., itialst) ‘:;:ppea1’s. that the Petitioner
Biiéitlki haS not’«éietettpifopeiiiy the order ptl.\’SCCi by

the .1’CSt)t}itCi’;jiitvi.:_t,i’£1[(2Ci E7.()8.?,{){}9. The

e:n’ei’ui pe’:’u._._sti] of tie sznd order shows that the

i’i’ii[\f’t 19ee:pt’)ndein has zteeepted the reqtiest made

ithe’ seet’)i1d respondent” and passed at

eoiisnteteitt order. He has given iiberty to the

seeoiidi respondent to file fresh dispute and

tfetitin reiief. The words ” €3°’t:E:E”£:}’:5t§c{J wéfixfitéegg c73~U£:tl’i”3<'5

X remzytg, 3:5/i§d€D mamas sssma a$.sw§Q:m w;'_p°"

indicate that the second respondent was given

the hbeny are sought for. The Petitioner Bank

\( \/:25