Karnataka Court April 2003 Judgments
The Executive Engineer, No. 4, Brlbc Division and ors. Vs. Lokesh Redd ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ151; (2003)IIILLJ662Kant
S.B. Majage, J 1. In these appeals, a short but an important point namely, 'whether the period of limitation provided under Section 10(4-A) of the Act, is directory or mandatory?' arises for consideration.2. Facts, which give rise to present appeals are:The respondents, claiming as workmen under the appellant 2 filed applications under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), before the Labour Court, stating that though they were working under the second appellant from 18-2-1993, March 1992, 14-7-1992, 22-1-1992, 1-6-1991 and 1-6-1991, without any reason, notice or enquiry, they were refused employment from 1-6-1994, 24-12-1993, 1-5-1993, 1-3- 1993, 12-12-1993 and 1-3-1993 respectively in violation of the principles of natural justice, Government Order and Section 25F of the Act and hence, entitled to the reliefs claimed therein. The appellants opposed the same stating that they (applicants) were appointed as daily wagers for a particular schem...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanappa Sanganabasappa Bagewadi (Deceased) by L.Rs Vs. State of Kar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: 2003(4)KarLJ315
M.F. Saldanha, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsels representing the appellants, the Counsels representing the contesting respondents and the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 on merits,2. This litigation has already gone through an earlier remand and the entire dispute virtually narrows down to one important aspect which the learned Single Judge has taken cognisance of. The appellant though he is not the eldest member of the family and though he is also not designated as the kartha, was the sole applicant when the Form 7 was filed in respect of an area of 12 acres 3 guntas. Subsequently, the contesting respondents who are his brothers also filed Form 7 contending that they are also entitled to proportionate grant of occupancy rights. On 13-10-1981, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the brothers were entitled to joint occupancy rights, and that order was challenged upto the High Court by the present appellant. We need to record here that it is the case of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Management of Continental Construction Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Continental ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: ILR2004KAR54; (2003)IIILLJ612Kant
1. The validity of the action of the management of the Continental Construction Ltd., Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 7454 of 1999 and the Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 6983/1999 terminating the service of four workmen under Clause 16 of the Certified Standing Orders (CSOs) of the Company and discharging another workmen during his probation in terms of the power reserved to the management in the appointment order is the subject matter of dispute between the management and the Continental Construction Limited Employees Union which is said to be a Trade Union representing those workmen. The Industrial Tribunal at Hubli held that the impugned action of the management is in accordance with law and in accordance with the power reserved to the management under Clause (6) of the CSOs and consequently, the reference was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. When the award of the Industrial Tribunal was assailed in Writ Petition No. 33435 of 1998 in this Court, a learned single. Judge of this Court...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›