Karnataka High Court
The Range Forest Officer vs Raju on 2 March, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
15 granting the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition. Accordingly said petition also deserves to be allowed. .«_'
9. In so far as W.P.34659/2011 not yoniyyt.gp;%ijm}ip1l'es enunciated in WP35537/2004 applies since similar plea has been raised, it"._is"'noticeldAvthatilgfirstd. petitioner along with RFO, before this court raising similar raising similar contention and assva.i.l.in_g..theA passed by Labour Court, dicta laid down in petition vide order dated the award of Labour Court.
It is also nolticed..lgthatflpeltitioner had approached this court i"r.1_§! 'V W2007 contending that principles enunciated in, P_ra~tamsingh's case is applicable to facts on hand" prayer made by first petitioner, this court by%'ord'er dated 24.10.2008 has held that award passed .1 Court holding petitioner is an industry cannot be and has set aside the award. Further it is noticed 4/