The petitioner sought mandamus to enforce a purported award and permission to prosecute the employer. The Court noted the Industrial Tribunal dismissed the reference in 2006 and the petitioner delayed representations until 2011. The petition was rejected as no award existed in the petitioner's favor.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:26502 WP No. 6181 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 6181 OF 2015 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. P.VENKATESH S/O PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, BYATHA VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560 089.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANUSHADEVI., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. B.V.NIDHISHREE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GEETHA.J.KADUR., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
NC: 2024:KHC:26502 WP No. 6181 of 2015
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Anusha Devi., learned counsel on behalf of
Smt.B.V.Nidhishree., for the petitioner and Smt.Anupama Hegde., learned counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.
II. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ by quashing the endorsement No.8(27) 2012B3, dated:05.11.2014 (Annexure-D).
several contentions.
Smt.Anusha Devi., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the CGIT passed the award on 09.08.2006 and was asked the Management to continue the service of the petitioner as a casual worker on a daily wage basis engaging his services as and when the work is available. She argued by saying that the petitioner submitted a representation in the year 2011, but it has not been considered. Counsel further submits that another representation was made to the first respondent seeking permission to prosecute the second respondent, but the same has not been considered. Counsel therefore, submits that the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition may be granted.
By way of reply, counsel Smt.Anupama Hegde., submits that the CGIT rejected the reference on the merits of the case. Hence, she submits that there is no award in favor of the petitioner. She argued by saying that the permission to prosecute does not arise for consideration. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:26502 WP No. 6181 of 2015
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.
back in the year 2006 i.e., on 09.08.2006. Strangely, the petitioner made a representation only in the year 2011 i.e., after a lapse of almost five years. The petitioner contends that the second respondent has not adhered to the award passed by the CGIT, hence, a direction is sought to direct the first respondent to grant permission to prosecute the second respondent. The reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be accorded by issuance of a Writ. The reason is simple. The reference is dismissed, which means there is no award in favor of the petitioner. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that there is availability of the work. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to writ relief to enforce an alleged award and seek prosecution permission where the reference was dismissed?
Whether the delay in filing representations warrants rejection of the writ petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Venkatesh
The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)
The Director, Central Fodder Seed Production Farm
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
