Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant261; AIR1966Mys261; (1966)1MysLJ221
Hegde, J. (1) These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise an identical question of law, namely, whether Rule 7 of the Mysore Government Servants Conduct Rules 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules' is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.(2) W.P. No. 1248/64 raises an additional contention, namely, that in addition to the aforesaid Rule 7. Rule 10 is also violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.(3) The petitioners are members of the Executive Committee of the Mysore State non gazetted Office's Association, to be hereinafter referred to as the 'Association'. They have been served with notices dated June 25, 1965, requiring them to show cause as to why no disciplinary action should not be taken against them for publishing certain objectionable statements in the pamphlet entitled 'Saga of our Struggle'. It is said that those statements contravene Rule 7(1) of the 'Rules'. The passage in the pamphlet objected to reads:'To make matters worse, the Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1966KAR666; (1967)ILLJ69Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. These petitions, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, raise and identical question of law, namely, whether rule 7 of the Mysore Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1957, to be hereinafter referred to as the rules is violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 2. Writ Petition No. 1248 of 1965 raises an additional contention, namely, that in addition to the aforesaid rule 7, rule 10 is also violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. 3. The petitioners are members of the executive committee of the Mysore State non-gazette Officers' Association, to be hereinafter referred to as the association. They have been served with notice dated 25 June, 1965, requiring them to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for publishing certain objectionable statements in the pamphlet entitled 'saga of our struggle.' It is said that those statements contravene rule 7(1) of the rules. The passage in the pamphlet objected to, reads : 'To make matters worse, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)IILLJ25Kant
ORDERTukol, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the order passed by the labour court at Hubli on 18 July, 1964. 2. The circumstances which have led to the present petition are briefly as follows. Two industrial disputes - one between the workmen of Gokak Mills and its management, and the other between the workmen of B. R. Darbar Ginning and Pressing Factory, Hubli (the petitioner before us) and its management - were referred to the labour court at Hubli under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act by orders respectively dated 25 February, 1964 and 2 April, 1964. These were numbered as No. 12 and 15 of 1964. The cause of the workmen the former was represented by one N. Keshava while in the latter by one Gothe. It appears form the order of the labour court that Sri V. N. Apte who is an advocate practising law in Hubli, sought for permission to appear in both the cases as an advocate. That appearance w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant225; AIR1966Mys225; [1966(12)FLR236]; (1966)1MysLJ189
T.K. Tukol, J. (1) The petitioner has approached this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the Order passed by the Lahore Court at Hubli on 18-7-1964.(2) The circumstances which have led to the present petition are briefly as follows: Two industrial disputes, one between the workmen of Gokak Mills and its Management, and the other between the workmen of M/s B.R. Darbar Ginning and Pressing Factory, Hubli (the petitioner before us) and its Management--were referred to the Labour Court at Hubli under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputed Act by Orders respectively D/- 25-2-1964 and 2-4-1964. These were numbered as No. 12 of 1964 and No. 15 of 1964. The cause of the workmen in the former was represented by one Mr. N. Keshava while in the latter by one Sri Gothe. It appears from the Order of the Labour Court that Sri. V.N. Apte who is an Advocate practising Law in Hubli, sought for permission the appear in both the cases as an Advocate. That appear...
Tag this Judgment!