Disposed

Prashanth K. M. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/5912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the failure of the labor department to consider a complaint filed under Sections 31 and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act regarding a workman's dismissal during conciliation proceedings. The court directed the department to consider the complaint within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider the representation dated 28.11.2019 and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

Prashanth K. M. Vs the Additional Chief… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 5912 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5912 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶8

SRI. PRASHANTH K.M, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SRI. MANJAYYA SHETTY M.G., KAMMARDI POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 125. (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K.B., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶9

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. BHOJE GOWDA T. KOLLER, AGA)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, THE PETITIONER MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS AN ORDER OR ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2019 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FORTHWITH AND

¶14

¶15

WP No. 5912 of 2023

¶16

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 AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Trade Union addressed a letter dated 02.04.2019 to the management, to grant the status of Protected Workmen to 36 Office-Bearers/Executive Committee Members for the period 2019-2020, 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, Region-1.

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 31 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking authorization to prosecute respondent No.2 for contravening the provision of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The complaint having not been considered, the petitioner WP No.9625/2022 before this Court. This Court by order dated 30.05.2022 disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider the complaint as expeditiously.

¶22

¶23

WP No. 5912 of 2023

¶24

Petitioners grievance is that though an order is passed by this Court, the respondent No.1 has not considered the complaint till date.

¶25

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

¶26

Submission is placed on record.

¶27

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 28.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner at Annexure-A, and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶28

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

RKA

¶31

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Prashanth K. M. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth K. M. 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

Smt M Jayalakshmi Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical)

M/S Hajee a P Bava & Co. Vs the Central Board of Trustees

M/S Fortland Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Goudra Krishanappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Lakkanna. D. R. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

M. Puttaswamy Vs State of Karnataka