Dismissed

Smt.B.N Asha v. M/S. the Management of Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2024WP/7789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Labour Court's rejection of an amendment application in I.D.No.03/2017 seeking to plead subsequent events about non-compliance of a reinstatement undertaking. The High Court held the amendment unnecessary for adjudicating the termination dispute and dismissed the petition, reserving liberty to pursue separate proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.B.N Asha Vs M/S. the Management of… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10510 WP No. 7789 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7789 OF 2024 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.B.N ASHA D/O LATE P NARASMHAMURTHY AGE, ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO. 0 252, 1 BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, PEENYA 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560058.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANANDEESWARA D R.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M/S. THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE HINDI PRACHARA PARISHAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRIDR G P BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. WORKING AT NO. 58, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560010

¶14

M/S THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE HINDI PRACHARA PARISHAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SRI R CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AT NO. 58, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560010

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. R KIRAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10510 WP No. 7789 of 2024

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE ON IA NO 6 IN ID NO 3/2017 AT ANNEXURE -A AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶23

petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶24

This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, rejecting the application dated 19.01.2024 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The petitioner who is a first party in a proceeding in I.D.No.03/2017 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bangalore, filed an application seeking amendment of the petition and sought permission of the Labour Court to incorporate prayer No.8(a).

¶25

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of prayer

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:10510 WP No. 7789 of 2024

¶28

No.8(a), which was sought to be introduced by way of an amendment, the petitioner wanted to bring on record the subsequent events that have taken place after the institution of the dispute in I.D.No.03/2017. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an order is passed by this Court in WP.No.42050/2018 which is filed by the respondents challenging the interim order passed in I.D.No.03/2017. In the said writ petition, this Court directed the present respondents who are the petitioners in this writ petition to reinstate the present petitioner, who was respondent in that writ petition, as employer had undertaken to reinstate. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the undertaking given by the present respondents, the petitioner is not reinstated to the place where she was working earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that these developments should be allowed to

¶29

come on record and these facts are necessary for adjudication of the dispute in I.D.No.03/2017.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10510 WP No. 7789 of 2024

¶31

Learned counsel for the respondents would

¶32

submit that the subsequent developments said to have taken place in terms of proposed paragraph No.8(a) are not necessary for adjudication of the dispute in I.D.No.03/2017. It is his submission that the present petitioner was reinstated in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents. He would also submit that the petitioner has filed an affidavit reporting compliance. However, the petitioner now submits that there is no compliance and alleges that he was not allowed to continue in the same place, where she was working prior to the termination. It appears that, now there is a dispute about the compliance of undertaking.

¶33

As can be noticed that the dispute was raised in I.D.No.03/2017 where the petitioner questioned the order of termination on the premise that the termination is illegal. Having gone through the dispute raised before the Industrial Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment is not necessary for adjudication of

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:10510 WP No. 7789 of 2024

¶35

¶36

the dispute pending before the Tribunal where the dispute is concerning the validity of termination of the petitioner

¶37

from the service. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-compliance of undertaking, the remedy for the petitioner is to initiate the appropriate proceeding provided under law. Reserving such liberty to the petitioner to initiate such proceeding (with all just exceptions), this petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition or the dismissal of the interim application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., should not come in the way of the Tribunal deciding the dispute in I.D.No.03/2017 on its merit within time limit already fixed

¶38

by this Court, in earlier writ petition.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PHM

¶41

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5

Smt.B.N Asha v. M/S. the Management of Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.B.N Asha v. M/S. the Management of Mysore Hindi Prachara Parishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. D E Venkatesh Vs Smt. Rukminiyamma

Smt. Kempamma Vs Sri. S. Raju

Smt Ghousia Khatoon Vs Smt Shahida Begum

M/S Veeravahana Udyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii

3M India Limited Vs Avery Dennison (India) Private Limited

Ttk Property Services Private Limited Vs Nil