M/S T.V.S.Finance And Services Ltd., vs H Shivakumar on 7 September, 2009

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S T.V.S.Finance And Services Ltd., vs H Shivakumar on 7 September, 2009

Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009, V. 

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA _GOW:DA"-E.:: ._ 3

AND

THE HON'I3LE Dr. JUS'I'ICI+3'K_,. B}L§Kjfi1AvA,?SeLA'  

WRIT APPEAL No.288%';§009 (L-V"I'EI'f?}E 
M1sc.w.8266/260.9, M1é'C';\§Qf..3}'45/2009" 
3: MISC.W5.-  

BETWEEN:

M/s.T.V.S.Finan-5e  V V" E"

Services Ltd., ____ H  " 37 V

Rep. by G.Sa1ku'm2,r;. _ --  
Manager, CLrporate'<3o1V1e'c:1or:;,"a___ _ '
No.27/1, Shé11_imar'P1a'zaf,~E..    " _

I Floor, Guttaheglli Mam Road,"  
10111 Cross,  . .  " V. 
Swimming 'Pool Extensioﬁ, '
1\'ia?.1€ShF?~'''<'417a1I3I» " " ' ...... -A
Bangalore-560 003. ...APPELLANT

(By: M   'Awsj'::.c>:'_t:iates, Advs .)

AND:

" ~  jvS;=_'i.I-5 .ShiVaku_fnar,
, ._ S,' 0.13:6 Hontiagangaiah,
¥._'Ma'j0r,_ 
._  R/'o.P-30;': 1', 2*"? 'A' Cross,
-- i  Shivanandanagar,



Nagarabhavi Main Road,
Bangalore--560 O72. ...RESPONDEN'i'

(By Sri.S.Jaya Sakthi Vel, Adv. for C / R--1}

7

This writ appeal is ﬁled under Section 4 of 
High Court Act praying to set aside the order passe.d'.'inV "V'Vrit. '

Petition N0.10097/2009 dt.1.7.2009. ' 

Misc.W.8266/2009 is filed u/s.E:;. of

praying to condone 18 days delay in filing"the:._apbeal;.  _

Misc.W.8746/2009 is filed u/5,4-1. Ru1e"27 of c.1ic«i.1pray--;hg to » t '

allow the production of certain additional document annexed as
Annexure~M.    

lViisc.W.8267/2009 is filed praying to stay
the operation & execution of the impaigned _=orde.1j.. 

These cases coining  for.:..~pre.liinii:arylVfhearing. this day,
 de14i*reI-ed the:jpfo11o.wing:--

For the reasons sta--ted:_in application, delay of 18 days in
    condoned. Accordingly, Misc.W.

8265/ 

2. iseazned «neounsel for the appellant does not press the

  Misc.W.8746/2009 seeking permission for

 of additional documents. Therefore, the same is

is rejected as not pressed.

Rd



3. The appellant/Management is before this Court praying

for setting aside the order dated 01.07.2009 made in Wri'tl'Petiti'on

No.l0097/2009 on the file of the learned single Judge;  V    is

4. Leamed senior counsel Sri.K.l§astt;ri

appellant submits that the case? of the._l'appel1antli.

prejudiced by the Labour Court in of  made in

Para Nos.4 and 5 of the impugried  ifeadsas follows:

"4. The very framing:::ct."'th'e_gsa;id.:1*iile itself is
contrary to   unat;i:11<alju"stice. Apart from
that whatiis  Labour Court in
Paragraph 'oft  'orderis th"at~»tiie Management has
not held a'D.omr:'st:ici  before passing an order
of dismissal against  iirst party workman as

mentioned W'.-101,. "

pp 0  !Xc~c_ordingWt«o the learned counsel for the
  'peti it is provided in the Standing Order
  Rules framed without providing any
op'portr:;£nity'Vl to he employee is contrary to the

A  Apestablistied principles of law. In the circumstances,
I vvithout adverting to Rule 17 of the Service Rules of the
AA"Respondent~Company, dismissing the employee

" ~ "without notice appears to be unjust and harsh oniy on L/ the ground that there is no jural relationship between,_ the parties and the Labour Court ought not to haye-_ dismissed the claim of the peitioner."

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/work_rnan'4subniitsg that though there is an order to pay 50%;"-of "last. ._ Within one month, the appellant has:_no.t yet 'paid ..../apart " C from that Management's representatixfelglwags 'absent "on_I 8A.l_f)8.2O09, 26.08.2009 and 02.09.2009 an_df'the_ case. has been adjourned for cross~eXamination, if any, as alast chance. C 'V It is irnplicit frorn addressed by the learned senior counsel'"appearing:?ior appellant that the observation made in Para"._Nos.4 prejudice the case of the Management beforethe Court. As no other contention is raised, it woiuIdu'ineet Cth'e«_e_ndvs of justice if the Labour Court is directed tgo--»dispgose'oVCfC"'th_e matter untrarnmeled by the observation jpmade of the order of the learned single Judge. In thesresult, the writ appeal is rejected with an that the Labour Court shall dispose of the Reference 'C in accordance with law, untranimeled by the observations I Lat made by the learned single Judge in Para Nos.4 and 5 of the writ petition. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the the earliest.

In View of the disposal of the writ apﬁ%,~g1; stay petition does not survive for considei*ati'on and rejected.

may bnv* the same 3 is L

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court