" VHAKAR, ADV.)
-1-
1N THE HIGH COURT 0:? KARNATAi{A'z&TAB§f§N§§Ai;f3§E V
DATED THIS THE rim DAY s%; PIé1L _ - A
Pnasimir A Q
THE HOIWBLE MR. 'BANI.~l li"R--!:\4lAT,!f5I
% % %
THE HODPBLE MR. gusricg 5.3%; GOWDA
1 V.L).01NDiA».LT.D;..% " _ . ;
(FORMERLY :mfi;Rr¢ATz<31~zALrNs'rRuMEm's LTD.)
NO. 14-1~Q.'H0sU_R' ROAE..,__
BANGALQRE-560 095 ,
REPRESEH'_I'ED.BY ETS
,. MANAGING D!_REC'['CrR.
u.APPELLANT
1 "-KUz¢'sL, 'ATHA K
D,{0?KAN1KARA.1
» AGED" 31 YEARS
" = «$0.14, 21'» MAIN ROAD
V. _ ROSE GARIJEN, VIVEKNAGAR
'BANGALORE-560 047
'T GSURESH
sxo A.S. GOPAL
AGED 29 YEARS
30.259, mm crzoss
DRAMBEDKAR NAGAR
-5.
2.' Appellant-management, has . --.
Court in this appeal being aggx'ie:fi:'ed:::byf'~
14.1.2008
passed by the
writ petition, setting aside t’.’fir::._V’»v’ayI:VvarcVis~« and
remitting the mathcr am: liberty to
me petitioners to hear the
matter aficsh- _
3. job trainees raised
dispute The refemnoe came to be
can. they were not workman, against
Writ petition was filed.
-« that Union was a necessary party which
_hadA1’1ot «jixiflpleaded, lmrned Single Judge deemed it fit
” ‘T .giye more opportunity to the writ petitioners and
–A.«i;uashed the impugned awards and Ielnitted the
_ m-atfiter back to the Labour court for fresh consideration after
A “giving permission to the writ petitioners to implead Union.
tab
.5.
4. Aflaer healing’ the ‘V
appellant and on going through
learned Single Judge, we do not mt§ rit_
especially when the learned _ the
basic defect of non~i1npleadiné has given
one more forth their
contentions. thtwexppeal and the
same is 1’ejeCl’£’:'(i’.*~ ‘
5. It both the parties are at
liberty to u’§*i1tf éo€ai11tc:.afitie;11s that are raised in the writ
gs’ ‘.§§e3i§,fas the A 1.