IN THE HIGH coURT op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated the 9"? day of December 201i)f :BEFORE: "f'ff' HONBLE 1VIR.JUSTICE : V,pJAoANiJATH;i§§ - _ i_ WRIT PETITION No. 1 /' goio' '_ BE)! WEEN : V.Selvaraju, S / o Viswanathan, about":"56 years, R/ai«;415.E;Trmock;cxxgan;Pvsg*. K.G.F., Kolar District. _ 1 . . . Petitioner The K.S.R.'l'§"C_: Kol'-ar Division, Kolar. ' V V' 'l V" ...Respondent
l3y.._Sri Hareesh Bhandary.T., Advocate. )
l5etition filed praying to quash the impugned
awanidanx12:12o1o Ixesaiin IIlNo.4/2009 kw
the “2”i.*~. Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, vide
iAn«neXure–A to the WP. and allow the Claim statement
‘prayed for.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in
‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following :
LoJ
But, the same was not answered by the Labou1′..__Court
and. therefore, relying on an Apex Court deeis’iVo11.:”}1171:”‘the
case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomz’. Vikas-‘.B.:”ank:VV:L:§’Ci.
Ram Gopal Sharma, reported’in”‘EZQOCZ–I_}.bi;tI.e$3’4:;.V the
submission made is that the’.__orC_1er teriniiiatiotli,
therefore, will be void or nonéest for ‘want _”0fV2s.eVeking the
approval under Sesocion ‘-and, ‘therefore, the
Labour Court ought to aspect of the
matter before C
4. The ‘made is that the Labour
Court-also -Wtiii_LVE3i’eAappreciating the facts of the ease
inasmueh«,da’s,:tho~:,igh–“: the checking of the bus was
condL;.Qte.d attttfiudigere Cross which comes before
“it.he-Labour Court took the View that Budigere
C:rossv.e’or§;_:e’s after Hosakote and. therefore, even on
faetsflithe findings of the Labour Court cannot be
‘sustained in law.
C5. Though the learned counsel for the respondent
referred to another decision of the Apex Court in the
ease of United Bank of India Vs. Sidhartha Chakraborty,
33(2](b} of the {.13. Act by the respondent. The Labour
Court shali dispose of the case within six m0:1t}’1~s:_”f1j0m
the date of receipt of a Copy of this order.
ckc/~