Parle Workers Union vs Parle Products Pvt Ltd on 10 June, 2013

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Parle Workers Union vs Parle Products Pvt Ltd on 10 June, 2013

Bench: Dilip B.Bhosale

                           1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2013

                      BEFORE
  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

           REVIEW PETITION No.1047/2012

Between:
Parle Workers Union
Reg.No.D.R.T.(B-3) 10/2010-11
25, 4th cross, Byrappa layout,
Nagashettihalli, Bangalore-94.
Represented by its General Secretary
Mr.Karibasappa Balamuri.
                                       ...Petitioner
(By Sri.K.S.Subramanya, Adv.)

And:
  1. Parle Products Pvt.Ltd.,
     15, KM Stone, Tumkur Road (N.H.No.4)
     Bangalore-73,
     Represented by Sri.N.Suresh,
     Operation - Manager.

  2. Government of Karnataka
     Department of Labour
     Vikas Soudha, Vidhana Veedhim
     Bangalore-560 001.
     By its Principal Secretary.
                                 ...Respondents

(By Sri.B.C.PRabhakar, Adv. for R1, Sri.Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA for R2) 2 This R.P. is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying to review the order dated 17.09.12 passed in W.P.No.12702/2012 (L-RES) on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

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

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union invited my attention to the judgment of this Court in Lalbi vs. Modinamma @ Modinbee and others ILR 2012 KAR 4403 and submitted that the order dated 17.09.2012 allowing the writ petition in favour of the Management deserves to be set aside, since it was disposed of at the stage of admission in the absence of Union. He submits that when a notice was issued it was not made clear that the petition itself would be heard and disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. Learned counsel for the Management does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the Union.

4. In the circumstances, without examining the case on merits, I set aside the order dated 17.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.12702/2012 and by consent, post the writ petition for preliminary hearing on 24.06.2013. It is made clear that the interim stay that was granted vide order dated 18.04.2012 when the notice was issued to the Union shall remain operative pending the hearing and final disposal of the writ petition. It is also made clear to the learned counsel for the parties that this Court may hear and dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission. The review petition is accordingly allowed and the Writ petition No.12702/2012 is restored to file.

Learned counsel for the parties are directed to furnish English Translation of Kannada documents, if any, on which they intend to rely upon in the course of arguments.

It is also open to the Union to file their statement of objections, if so advised with an advanced copy thereof to learned counsel for the Management.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court