Disposed

Lakkanna. D. R. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023WP/5926/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, via an original writ petition, examined the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-consideration of his representation by the Respondent (Additional Chief Secretary), despite a prior order by this Court. The court observed that the dispute, initially regarding the status of Protected Workmen, was linked to a complaint under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act w

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's submission dated 28.11.2019 and pass an appropriate order within four weeks.

Lakkanna. D. R. Vs the Additional Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 5926 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5926 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. LAKKANNA D.R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SRI. RAMANNA, NO.105, DODDAMADHURE VILLAGE AND POST, YEDIYUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 142.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

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

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND DISPOSE OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.11.2019 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXUREA FORTHWITH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND /OR TO

¶17

¶18

WP No. 5926 of 2023

¶19

PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING IMPOSING EXEMPLARY COST ON THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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 8 Officers of the Union, against which the Trade Union raised a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Region-1.

¶23

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

¶24

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 respondent (Addl. Industrial Tribunal) to consider the complaint as expeditiously.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 5926 of 2023

¶27

Petitioner's grievance is that though an order is passed by this Court, the respondent has not considered the complaint till date.

¶28

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

¶29

Submission is placed on record.

¶30

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.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

RKA

¶34

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Lakkanna. D. R. v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakkanna. D. R. 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

Prashanth K. M. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

M. Puttaswamy Vs State of Karnataka