Smt. Kempamma W/O Jayaramareddy and ors. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi W/O Narayanaswamy and D/O G.N. Narayanappa and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- trade unions act, 1926[c.a. no. 16/1926]. section 2(h): [h.n. nagamohan das, j] settlement under section 18 of the industrial disputes act, 1947 negotiation with union held, in the absence of code of conduct recognising union which enjoys support of majority of workmen, it is not proper to exclude the recognised trade union from the proceedings before the tribunal. tradition of simultaneous but separate negotiation with both unions for sufficient length of time will have a binding force. impugned award was liable to be quashed.orderb.s. patil, j.1. learned counsel for the petitioners has today produced before the court, the order sheet of the court below maintained in exe, no. 5/2009. it is seen from the order dated 20.4 2009 that the court below has directed the decree holder to hand over the properly seized to the court. it is also further seen, since the decree holder requested the court below to provide police protection to him to transport the raised articles to the court, the court below has observed that the police help shall be given to the decree holder.2. in the light of this order passed on 20.4.2009, the grievance of the petitioners that the custody of adzed articles have been illegally given to the decree holder, does not survive for consideration. however, if the articles are not transported to the court and if the petitioners are of the view that the decree holder will tamper the articles without complying with the direction issued by the court, then it is open to the decree holder to move the court below or move this court during vacation to reek necessary orders.reserving such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

B.S. Patil, J.

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has today produced before the court, the order sheet of the court below maintained in Exe, No. 5/2009. It is seen from the order dated 20.4 2009 that the court below has directed the decree holder to hand over the properly seized to the court. It is also further seen, since the decree holder requested the court below to provide police protection to him to transport the raised articles to the court, the court below has observed that the police help shall be given to the decree holder.

2. In the light of this order passed on 20.4.2009, the grievance of the petitioners that the custody of adzed articles have been illegally given to the decree holder, does not survive for consideration. However, if the articles are not transported to the court and if the petitioners are of the view that the decree holder will tamper the articles without complying with the direction issued by the court, then it is open to the decree holder to move the court below or move this Court during vacation to reek necessary orders.

Reserving such liberty, this Writ Petition is disposed of.