Karnataka High Court
M/S Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL ORE | fo
DATED THIS THE 22" Day OF APRIL 2010 . at oy
M/S. EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (rnntuRAD LIMITED | cae
NO.1, QUEENS RGAD 7 a oe oa
BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY rns ASSISTANT.
GENERAL M, ANAGER (SARNATAKGRAT) VINOD. Te
Spat
PE rr TONER
(By Sri.3.N-MURTEHY, SR.COUNSEL ORE COVINIRAL, abv)
AND:
| 1, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA pep. yo
| rs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNM NE
3, THE ASSTLABOUR COMMISSIONER AND.
CONCILIATION OFFICER DIVISION'
i
KARMIKHA BHAVAN
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
- BANGALORE-560 0029.
AND REGIST RAR OF TRADE UN IONE
KARMIKHA BHAVAN .
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 0029.
5. BANGALORE NEWSPAPER EN {PLOYEES UNION,
NO.75, M.G.ROAD, BANGA.ORE-560 O01:
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. | ae
; RESPONDENTS
(By Sri JAGADEESH MUNDA\ RGI, AGAT FOR RIA . SRI M.C. NA RASIMHAN, 'SR. COUNSEL FOR RS) "THIS: WRIT" Pi TITION is "PILED UIA: 226. & 227 OF: -
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH, THE ORDER PASSED: BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DA' TED #3.2009 AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND D EEC. -
a This petition coming on for: preliminary hearing this: day woe gh athe . the court made the following,. oe ae referred for adjudication. ; : : oS
2. Fifth respondent claiming to be the workers' union 7 representing the workers in the petitioner's company filed petition before the Conciliation Officer reising certain deraands against the petitioner. The Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report to the Government, Now under the impugned order, the Government at Annextite-N referred two sets of points for adjudication. to the labour Court, Before the labour Court the Bib respondent entered appearaiice and had filed the claim statement. Thoiigh the petitioner entered appearance before the labour Court, have hot yet filed their statement of objections. But ._ have approached this court by filing this writ petition questioning the order of reference at Annexure-L. Meard arguments on both the side and pen
4. Point No.1 referred in the order of reference is to the effect that petitioner denied employment to the workmien © petitioner contends that the workmen have abandoned 'the employment and that they have not refused the work and that there is no partial lockout. Since the abandonment of work by the workmen is not referred under the 'impugned order, petitioner cannot adduce evidence on the same and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed:
5. In the evenr. of petitioner filing statement of objections before the Jabour Court and out of that pleading if an _ issue arises relating to abandonment of the work by th a then the 1 | with the impugned order at Annexure-N, ow : oe ffs hereby directed to dispose the matter in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGE."
DKB