Re THE men C(}UR'I' OF KARNAYAKA A1" BaNGALom4: --V __ Dated this the 17"' day ofJuly, 2on9 Before ' me HON-'BLE MR JUSIIICE HUI. U'a*x'AL%I T 1z»2ME§S}:: * jg, , . 1 T ' Writ Petman 1711;§12*--1.ga05'M(Li'¢.«; Management of Mfs C10 Tyres Psivgtc Ltd" 9a' Mile, Old Madras Road, Virgafiagar '_ V v _ Bangalore 560 049 - by its Direcmr ' -- fie-titioner (By Sri V s Naik, Adv). And: ' Sri Jayararn " V 40 yrs, Rfa Virgonagat' -- Bangalore 56;) 8&9 ' ' " . ---- ' Rcspondent (By Sri T Narayamgwégnjé,' 5&3.) »~ 4 .Pefiti£wii 'is----flied under At-t.i226f227 of the Constitution *Vprat5%i:~.g' ti) qn.aia§1the7«3ward dated 29.1.2005 in Ref. 5521992 by the 21 Add}. Labéur Cu;t;v.Ba:n_gaIgjre. ' coming on for hearing this day, the Court made the fa-llowizlg} = " ORDER
-‘ K5ei§tion is by the management assailing the award of the II Addi.
T Court, Baxxgaierc on 29.1.20{)’§ in ordering for reinstating tixe
AW’
2
workman with continuity sf service and consequential benefits with full back
wages.
On the gound that the management is not in a position to c0ntimV1c.”the_
ttperations of the ceinpany and that the Bangalore Unit is in M
closure, workman was transferred to Maharasthra Unit at V’ ”
there is an order of transfer issued by the mat1agéinent,_,’tt1£: , T
reference. Labour: Court after inquiry wlsfis fl1c;.rét7es-Vientze,
ardered for reinstatement of the workmsits his ofigixiéis all
conscquentiaf benefits as noted ,_
Main igriessancs Writ” ftietixaiiéigsittsnt is regarding the maintainability ef
the dispute by tits wo:kif;aii”Vi;éidi\;’i”c’.;1aiHy as he ought to have raised the
dispute iiriiersiss the pmvisions sf S.2 (k) of the Inciustrial
in Aflsvtaitztcsuskct, “I: is his further submission that as on January 2066, the
such, the transfer was crdcred and the question of
V ihis miristatexniéstt in the Bangsisre Unit does nut arise much less the aw;-ml is
W ” ” 1 :fi:>:Vi–>2-«git in the we of law.
Vi It is the submissisn of the respcndsnfis counsel, éuring I992 itself
-fliers was refusai at” einpteymcnt by way of passing an order of transfer as
xiii.
seek, there is no illegaiity in the order of reference passed by the government
and also in seeking reference individually in the circumstances andelso
submittetl that it is not necessary that the workman has to approeetiii
the General Union and also there is no such Union being fo:In_ed..as:tlic ljitit’
of the petitioner is only a small unit. Wl’1at:”is
workman was working since 1979 as 3. _easn2il’..lal3our for»l,soit:etiine’=…i:;otéti:~,vtIi§t earlier there is a I
an erder of dcputafién ._;rm-nth si1_i;:,éf–in”t.’ie’ ‘siibsequent order mere is
an avrder of transfer. inatieg same as unfair and nothing
but victizniiiativm ifightljs passed an order of neinstatement
with continuity._of aervéca £V!I3tA1″.t”J”.’,j}’i.lti’i”V.’é()!lSE(1i11t?IkiliaI benefits.
. ” i V V”I.*i.tii:§iresii}t,,’ whilst the award of the Labour Court, since it
management that the Bangalore Unit is c2ose<L the
Wtzrkmah is 'for closure compensation in addition to the consequemtia}
– bttnefrts with 68% back wages. Petition is aliowcd in part. .8m>{2»» 4″‘-
” V N
‘fiat x<~£'«'~~ ?'5?4:*8 *
saléi
'fudge