Disposed

Jagannath B J v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/5715/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the non-consideration of a complaint by the petitioner regarding the dismissal of a protected workman during conciliation proceedings. The High Court directed the respondent to consider the complaint within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 25/10/2021 within four weeks.

Jagannath B J Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5715 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5715 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAGANNATH B. J., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SRI. JAYARAME GOWDA, BRAMHADEVANAHALLI POST AND VILLAGE, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN - 571 432.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K. B., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERRNMET OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. BHOJEGOWDA T KOLLER, AGA)

¶15

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-DIRECT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25/10/2021 AS

¶16

¶17

WP No. 5715 of 2023

¶18

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FORTHWITH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND/OR TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING IMPOSING EXEMPLARY COST ON THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The Trade Union addressed a letter dated 04.04.2021 to the management, to grant the status of Protected Workmen to 35 Office-Bearers/Executive Committee Members for the period 2021-2022, and the petitioner was one among them. The Management granted status of Protected Workmen to only five Officers of the Union, against which the Trade Union raised a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner.

¶22

During the pendency of the conciliation proceedings, the management dismissed the petitioner from service.

¶23

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 31 of the

¶24

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking authorization to prosecute the management for contravening the provision of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The complaint

¶25

having not been considered, the petitioner filed WP No.9133/2022 before this Court. This Court by order dated

¶26

¶27

WP No. 5715 of 2023

¶28

30.05.2022 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the complaint as expeditiously.

¶29

Petitioner’s grievance is that though an order is passed

¶30

by this Court, the respondent has not considered the complaint till date.

¶31

Learned Additional Government Advocate on

¶32

instructions submits that the complaint submitted by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law, if reasonable time is granted.

¶33

Submission is placed on record.

¶34

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent to consider the representation dated 25.10.2021 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-A within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of .

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2: CT:PH

Jagannath B J v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath B J v. the Additional Chief Secretary

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

The Management of Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.M.S.Rajeshwari Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Govindaiah G

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Sadiq Khan

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

V Raman Vs State of Karnataka