M/S. Bata India Limited and ors Vs. Ms H Savithri W/O Padama and ors - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[ram mohan reddy j.] this petition filed under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india praying to call for records leading to the passing of the impugned order dt. 1.10.2008, passed by the industrial tribunal. bangalore in serial application no. 51/2003 in id no. 138/2000 vide anx-d. and direct the impunged order dt. 1.10.2008. passed by the industrial tribunal. bangalore in serial application no. 51/2003 in i.d.no. 138/2000 vide anx-d.order1. common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making. hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and arc disposed of by this common order.2. the lis brought before this court is fully covered by a decision in m/s. bata india limited rep by its vice president vs. kanikraj and therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. petitions are accordingly dismissed.3. though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application is pending before the apex court to recall the order dated 18.10.2010 in special ii.r 2010 kar 1403 leave to appeal (civil) no.21879/2009, i am afraid, that contention does not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner. i must say so because, order dated 18.10.2010 of the apex court reads thus:"at the first stage some other counsel had appeared and had requested us to pass over the matter but on second call, no one appears for the petitioner.on 24th august, 2009 notice was issued limited to the question as to whether the respondent would be willing to accept a one time settlement in terms of money and forego his reinstatement. the respondent is not willing.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petitions are clubbed together, finally heard and arc disposed of by this common order.

2. The lis brought before this Court is fully covered by a decision in M/S. BATA INDIA LIMITED REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT vs. KANIKRAJ and therefore, these petitions deserve to be dismissed. Petitions are accordingly dismissed.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application is pending before the Apex Court to recall the order dated 18.10.2010 in Special II.R 2010 KAR 1403 Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.21879/2009, I am afraid, that contention does not ensure to the benefit of the petitioner. I must say so because, order dated 18.10.2010 of the Apex Court reads thus:

"At the first stage some other counsel had appeared and had requested us to pass over the matter but on second call, no one appears for the petitioner.

On 24th August, 2009 notice was issued limited to the question as to whether the respondent would be willing to accept a one time settlement in terms of money and forego his reinstatement. The respondent is not willing to accept the proposal.

The special leave petition is dismissed.'

4. A bare perusal of the order does not disclose any consideration over the merit of the decision reported supra but touches upon a limited question as to whether the workman would be willing to accept a one-time settlement in terms of money and forego his claim of reinstatement. Writ petitions are accordingly rejected.