Sri Krishna vs Sri M R Doreswamy on 13 February, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Krishna vs Sri M R Doreswamy on 13 February, 2017

Bench: G. Narendar

                               1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2017

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

        WRIT PETITION NO.65382/2016 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

Sri. Krishna,
S/o. Kariyappa,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at :
Chikka Vittana Halli - Village,
Bommnnipura,
Gollara Doddi, Kasaba - Hobli,
Tagachigere - Post, Chennapattana - Taluk,
Ramanagara - District - 571 501.
                                             ...Petitioner

(By Sri. Krishna, Party-in-person)

AND

1. Sri. M.R. Doreswamy,
Founder Secretary`,
PES Institutions,
Bangalore-560 050.

2. Sri. K.N. Balasubrahmanya Murthy,
Principal and Director,
P.E.S.I.T.,
Bangalore-560 085.
                                 2




3. Sri. Umapathy,
Supervisor,
Campus Maintenance
P.E.S.I.T.,
Bangalore-560 085.
                                              ...Respondents

(By Sri. K.R. Anand, Adv. for R-1 to R-3)

      This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Order
dated 20.03.2016 vide Annex-E, Ref. No.19/2013 passed
by the Hon'ble Labour Court in I.A.2 and etc.,

      This writ petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-

                            ORDER

The above writ petition is preferred calling in question the Order on I.A. No.2 seeking for grant of interim relief in Ref. No.19/2013.

2. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferring their statement of objections enclose therewith a copy of the final award passed in Ref. No.19/2013. Hence, the writ petition preferred, calling in 3 question, the Order on application seeking for grant of interim relief, does not survive for further consideration in view of the final award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Reference itself. Hence, writ petition is disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.

3. I.A.1/2016 is filed for permission to allow the GPA holder on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Accepting the cause shown in the affidavit, I.A.1/2016 is allowed.

5. In view of the disposal of the main matter, I.A.2/2016 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE snc

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court