Disposed

A R Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2012WP/28237/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an Industrial Tribunal award rejecting a reference due to inordinate delay. The Court declined to interfere with the award but directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for clarification on the punishment's cumulative effect.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; no interference with Industrial Tribunal award; applicant directed to move competent authority for clarification.

A R Malleshappa Vs the Divisional Controller — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.28237/2012(L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

A R MALLESHAPPA AGED 64 YEARS, CONDUCTOR ARAKERE VILLAGE & POST ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY KSRTC EMPLOYEES UNION (INTUC) R 2, SAHAYADRI BEHIND, ARALEPET HASSAN

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

( BY SRI. L SHEKAR, ADV.,)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. CHICKAMAGALUR DIVISION

¶13

CHICKMAGALUR

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DT.21.4.12, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REF.NO.136/06 VIDE ANN-A & CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REFERENCE AS PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING

¶16

¶17

THIS WP.

¶18

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner has sought for quashing of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, dated 21.04.2012 in Reference No.136/2006.

¶21

Admittedly, the order of punishment was passed by the respondent withholding annual increments of the petitioner for three years with cumulative effect on 9th July 1970 and the reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is made in 2006. There is nearly 36 years of inordinate delay in seeking the reference. On the ground of delay itself, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected the claim petition. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award.

¶22

However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order of punishment is for stopping of

¶23

¶24

increments for a period of three years with cumulative effect and it requires a clarification, as admittedly, the punishment is only for three years and it could not have been with cumulative effect.

¶25

If any clarification is necessary, it is open to the petitioner to move an application before the competent authority.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

sma

A R Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A R Malleshappa v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr N Ramalinge Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Rudramuni Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Krishi Polymers Private Limtied Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Atalanta Applied Dynamics Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Feroz Pasha M B Vs the Divisional Controller