Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sumithra K. Vs. State of Karnataka and ors.

Sumithra K. vs State of Karnataka and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Jul 15, 1994
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/377048

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 39381 of 1992
Subject
Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961] -- Section 254(2) : [K.L. Manjunath & Arali Nagaraj, JJ] Power of Tribunal to review its order -Whether the Tribunal can exercise its powers under Section 254(2) of the Act to review its earlier on merits? Held, The Tribunal can review its own order if there is a mistake appare...

Key legal issue
Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sumithra K.

Respondent

State of Karnataka and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
[1995(70)FLR743]; 1994(3)KarLJ132; (1995)ILLJ242Kant

Excerpt

- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- section 254(2) : [k.l. manjunath & arali nagaraj, jj] power of tribunal to review its order -whether the tribunal can exercise its powers under section 254(2) of the act to review its earlier on merits? held, the tribunal can review its own order if there is a mistake apparent from the record. but in the present case, the power exercised by the tribunal under section 254(2) of the act results in reviewing the entire earlier order by reconsidering its earlier findings which is not the scope of 254(2) of the act. hence, impugned order was set aside. - it is well-settled law that it is not open to the government to hold as to whether the 2nd respondent is an industry or not and it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the labour court.orderkumara rajarathnam, j.1. this writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.2. the short point on which this writ petition can be disposed of is whether the government can reject the request for reference on the ground that the 2nd respondent would not come within the jurisdiction of the industrial disputes act.3. the government has gone to the extent of holding that the 2nd respondent is not an industry within the meaning of the industrial disputes act. it is well-settled law that it is not open to the government to hold as to whether the 2nd respondent is an industry or not and it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the labour court.4. in these circumstances, there will be a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider afresh the case of the petitioner and to dispose of the application in the light the observations made by me.5. the first respondent will dispose of the application for reference within a period of four weeks from the date of the order being communicated to the first respondent. 6. there will be no orders as to costs.7. this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.8. all the contentions raised by the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent are permitted to be raised by them in the event of reference being made.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kumara Rajarathnam, J.

1. This writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the parties.

2. The short point on which this writ petition can be disposed of is whether the Government can reject the request for reference on the ground that the 2nd respondent would not come within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The Government has gone to the extent of holding that the 2nd respondent is not an industry within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is well-settled law that it is not open to the government to hold as to whether the 2nd respondent is an industry or not and it is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

4. In these circumstances, there will be a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to consider afresh the case of the petitioner and to dispose of the application in the light the observations made by me.

5. The first respondent will dispose of the application for reference within a period of four weeks from the date of the order being communicated to the first respondent.

6. There will be no orders as to costs.

7. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

8. All the contentions raised by the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent are permitted to be raised by them in the event of reference being made.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial