1
Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-17-2012
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, C.J. 1. This appeal assails the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.11.2011 allowing Interlocutory Application No.10 of 2011 in W.P.No.37490/2010 and 40967-41032/2010 and directing the appellant to pay the wages last drawn by the Respondent-Workmen under Section -17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for the short ‘ID Act’), with effect from 30 days after publication of the Award impugned before him. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on the Division Bench Judgment rendered by the High Court of Kerala in Commandant, Defence Security –vs- Secretary, 2001 (2) KLT 104. However, we are of the considered opinion that this decision is of no avail to the case proffered by the petitioner/appellant since the Division Bench was seized and placed in the position where the learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the Management in which the remonstration was that the writ petitioner was neither an industry no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-07-2012
Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J1. The petitioner, who was the former Chief Minister (BJP) of the State of Karnataka, is before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following reliefs:(i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the Complaint dated 22.8.2011 filed by the 3rd respondent/Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, against him for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Annexure-A;(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash the FIR registered in Crime No.36/2011 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 9 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Annexure-A-1;(iii) to quash the Order of Sanction dated 2.8.2011 for initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioner at Annexure-B on the file of Governor of Karnataka;(iv) to quash the relevant portion of the Report at chapter 22 of Lokayukta dated 27.7....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to take all necessary steps to prevent manufacture / sale drinking water without 1st standard as prescribed Under Section 15 of The Bureau of Indian Standard Act.) Aravind Kumar, J. “WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE, BUT NOT A DROP TO DRINK” are the words of celebrated English Poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772.1834) PREFACE 1. In these petitioners, an important issue touching the lives of human beings has come up for consideration namely, WATER which is one of the basic necessities for human existence. Several debates, discussions, deliberations, seminars across the world is being held or conducted on this vital subject since it has effects on the very existence of the human race. 2. Water is considered a purifier in most religions. Major faiths that incorporate ritual washing (ablution) include Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Rastafari movement, Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-15-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.29154/1999 DATED 7-1-2002.)NAGARATHNA. J1. The Karnataka Government Insurance Department (hereinafter, referred to as the "KGID” for the sake of brevity) has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07/01/2002 passed in W.P.No.29154/99. By the said order, it has been held that the appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is an "Industry", within the meaning of Section unamended 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the “I.D.Act", for the sake of brevity).2. The relevant facts leading up to the filing of this appeal are that the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen and management of the KGID, by order dated 26/10/1994, referred the following points of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-26-2012
(Prayer: THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE PETITIONER PERMISSION TO END HER LIFE AND TO DIRECT FORMATION OF A COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE TO INTELLIGIBLY AND HUMANELY LEGALIZE EUTHANASIA AND TO DECLARE SECTIONS 306 AND 309 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL INSOFAR AS IT CONCERNS TO THE PETITIONER.) I propose to commence the order with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, which would read as under: "Some days back a calf having been maimed lay in agony in the ashram. Finally in all humility but with the clearest of convictions I got in my presence a doctor kindly to administer the calf a quietus by means of a poison injection. The whole thing was over in less than two minutes. The question may legitimately be put to me: Would I apply to human beings the principle I have enunciated in connection with the calf? Would I like it to be applied in my own case? My reply is 'Yes'; the same law holds ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Feb-01-2012
Reported in : 2012(5)KLJ11
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated. 22.2.11 vide annexure to this W.P. passed in ATA No. 712 (6)/2006 by the Honorable EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. And etc.,) 1. Petitioner, Proprietorship firm is seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 712 (6) /2006 vide Annexure-E. 2. Heard Sri. K.R. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order, statement of objections filed by respondent as also Annexures appended to the writ petition. 3. Petitioner is carrying on transport business by employing workers and said establishment was not covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity). On 9...
Tag this Judgment!