High Court Karnataka High Court

Vitobarao Nagendra Rokade vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 14 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Vitobarao Nagendra Rokade vs Deputy Labour Commissioner on 14 November, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy


IN THE men COURT or mmarmg V % T’ ‘

cmcurr BEIJCI-I A1’ ” ‘– A

mmn THIS Tam mm nun V0!’ :ie€:3M smfic’

32993;:

TI-IE aowur: MKJU8TIC_E “‘$AP4 MOH.§;& RE_i9nY
wart PE1*IT1oN’2ai3ran1¢é;1z;_ :3 1’329 :’oz-E 200818-RES)

BETWEEN

VITOBARAQ. NAz3§2–2x;:)RA«.;2QKADE’-«._’ *
CARI.) NO. }94?Q’,;_AGE ‘543″TAm-ABS ‘1,
0:30: Q,PER_RPER,”‘E3IARI.EiAR Posy. FIBERS
KUPuriAEfPATN}&Zi1i.,HAV¢Ei21’ ms,-Vrmcr
HAVERL = % ” ‘
PETITIONER

(BY SR1. H M§)HAR1:Gt;NVr3; ADV)

A. …..

‘ ” QBOUR COMMISSIONER

_ ‘QAN’a”‘g*:QHciLIAT10N OFFICER
A _ ‘8n::,{.w._:M REGION BELGAUM.

1’H§:«;.~3c:N*r EXECU’I’!VE PRESIQENT

‘~ ‘T ‘KUMAR PATNAM, DIS’}’.HAVERI.

GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTB.

RESPGNDENTS
(BY SR1. R K HATTI, HCGP FOR R1}

THIS WRIT PETYFION {S FILED UKDER

ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF’ THE CCINSTITUTION OF INDEA

PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
D’I’fl.1.08.2008 ISSUED BY 2″” RESPONENT VIBE

M

law.

…[4_«

an empioyee. If that is so, no exception can be
communication dated 1st August, 20{}$_ E3; K

informing the petitioner that he:’v颒uka .§ r¢:_ac:h ‘V

superannuation on 16.1 1.2008.

In the event ‘j ‘is ‘eamended
extending the age of suoeiegnouaéigfin »_58 to 60 years
and if the peti§iooer_i5 therefrom, it
is necdiess fit) at that stage

invoke jiiriedicfion a competent court of

The wrif ‘1a§;tifio1i”i;3.’%3cco.fti_1ei1ig1y rejected.

Sd/’3
Iud§§

_ *-9.578’ ,