IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated tha €511' day of December 2016
: B E F O R E :
HCWBLI: MRJUSTICE : V.JAGANNAT.HA;N"' 5
WRIT PE'T1*I'I£f)N Ne. 25%: /%'2:3:'1:) (L-;3ES1A.A . ~
BETWEEN 2
The Management of _ , _ ._
M/3 Banjara the Restaurant' :
MR8 Groups, No.32/3, vMezzani£!.¢'~.Fi9€;§r,A
Hvtcl Goldfmch, i31jC'_m€::1§1t Ro:1d,'«.V
High G1'ouI}ds_C}fi', {Race Ciotérsaflaad,
Ba11ga.103:C W E3(30,f0Q "£;':*cpi'é§5a':Li'11i1§d V
Vice PfCSid6flt;,.C30iTf}0I'£zt€w
. . .P'e£itj0I1er
( C. Advocate, for
,?sVB_1_10QpaJ:;;1n Law Assts. }
V ' «Raiya Hotels and
RL'c:$0;r_ts&TAS€;&f'f &.iE.fi1p1oyees Track: Union,
C,/0 AETLIC. SiI*u1* Park Road.
_ShesI'i«ad1f§p'L:rfi, Banga1ort:~56O O20.
4 £§0dand;ara;§na Bfihetty -- concerned
" " 'w5€;):kman;V--*
. . Respondent
{ By Sri M.C.Narasimhan, Advocate. )
Writ Pétitiflfi fikeci praying to quash the order dated
13.6.20 33 passad by the Labeur Gourt, Bangalere, in ID
No. 45 :1 2369 {Armtitxure-J1.
2
This petition coming 031 for preliminary hearing in
‘B’ group this day. the court made the f<;)11<)\=sz"iI1§f:;"t;" " A
The petitioI1er~EVIanagen3_e:1t eatlein q:;e%s;:2¢:: I:i§;1e'.'e
order passed by the Labour 'oq gent
of interim relief dum1g%_e-gehe Vluaatter
before the Labour_{3our§."… 9» 2 ' '
2. The Labgugf Qfdef:’Ve’r1—I;’;A.No. allowed
the :3;pp1ieat;i€.(;n~ j applicant and
directed j pay Rs.4,()OO/L per
month wa_\f=. relief to the first
V party’/42§:3p}jcaI.it”»frei§1 May. ‘.2010 tifl the disposal of the
‘¥.Vc3;se’1§ef0fe it’&11(i in respect of arrears, it was to be paid
{dire ‘of Rs.i2_,OO0/- each for the
V V’ _peI’i0{‘i”*–fr0:’1:1.fx’§e1y to June 2010.
~ :The ‘$ubmissi0I1 of the pet:it:i{mer’s eounsei is that,
Vpetitjiener has assailed the impugrled order on the
T -«’..:’gr0″1.T1z1d of {he respondent-Union espousing the cause of
:t:he workman untier Section 1C}{4-A) of the I’;1du.st.1′:iai
Dii§1I)’£l’é.(i’:S Act arid secondly. though the petitiener diti
3:»
as r
Maeege:fie:3.t;”‘
3
offer aitemate employment to the concerned workman
as iiildicated by the petitioner at AI1I”1CXiJI'(‘:’.-H.
respondentwworlenan did not aeeeifit
even. for this reason also, theVimépugiieci”order.ie.1ie1§le°’§.o”~
be set aside. V V A
4. Apart from the fhe learned
counsel also submittedAtee’~ieeojo petitioner
before the 2: ‘-ievefi? how and the
petitioner is employment to
the B.S§1ett3r’) on
payment «month as salary and the
court §n.ay f1′:a.e ” offer of the petitioner-
for the respondent (concerned
_work1″12.aI:}__”suiimitted that the ofier made is acceptable
” the Coljrt may also consider ganting the arrears as
the IIIORUE of May 2018 onwards,
2 Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made
sand aieo taking note of the memo féeci by the petitiener
3:
before the Labour (lourt as per An11exurs~»H, as
mattsr is stili penciing before the Labour .
necessary to examine the contentiqns puitf by
tht-: pt:tit.io§1er’s counsel before this cgiuzi’; kist” if
prejudice the case cf the ”
confining the matter to the
foilowing erdttzr is passev<i'E'– s' T . .
Tim: petitiszasg: is
the B.SI1stLy) and
the to choose any one
of the tI";:i'c;e" in the memo filed before
the Ap(ér«…?ir1r1eXure~}1. The petiticmer
"'shaiI._':§1sQ_; p£1jr i;fié"'s9§1cem1ed worktman Rs.8,5{){}f- per
ciuimg the psndsncy of the matter .
¥;ref.Cr§: Vthe_ Lféibc§1.1r {'3s1.1rt and the petitioner shall also
. 'pay arrsars to the resp0nde:nt~w0rkma:I1 at the rate sf
per I1'10I1l':h from the momh of May' 2010 till
—-. §?0\fember 20 .10. The resp0nden1:~workma11 is fiver: time
~ iii} 153* sf this month to report for Work.
%
‘A
5
With the aforesaid Qbservations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
sali
ckc/-