Karnataka High Court
The Managing Partner vs Smt. Rukmini on 7 February, 2019
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION No.50572/2017 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGING PARTNER,
ASTRA PROCESSORS,
INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUDLURU,
KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU - 571 234.
REP. BY ITS PARTNER M.R. NANDAKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RUKMINI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
W/O. BHASKAR,
2. SMT. ROOPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O. SWAMY,
3. SMT. YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
W/O. ERANNA,
4. SMT. RATHNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
W/O. V.B. THAMMAIAH,
5. SMT. SUMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O. MANJUNATH,
6. SMT. KAVERI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
W/O. SWAMY,
-: 2 :-
7. SMT. LAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O. NAGARAJ,
8. SMT. YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
W/O. RAJU,
9. GOWRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O. NAGASHETTY,
10. SMT. GAYATHRI
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. RAVI,
11. SMT. SAKAMMA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O. NANJEGOWDA,
12. SMT. RADHA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
W/O. NAGARAJ,
13. SMT. SUDHA
W/O. PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
14. SMT. RATHNA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O. HANUMANTHA,
15. SMT. BHAGYA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
W/O. BASAVARAJU,
ALL ARE WORKMEN WORKING AS
GARBLERS, ASTRA PROCESSORS,
KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUDLUR,
KUSHALNAGAR, KODAGU - 571 234.
REPRESENTED BY:
SRI M.G. AIYAPPA,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL &
PLANTATION LABOUR UNION,
DR. S. RADHAKRISHNA LAYOUT,
-: 3 :-
4TH BLOCK, KUSHALNAGAR,
KODAGU - 571 234. ... RESPONDENTS
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARDS DATED 19.05.2015 AND 18.08.2015 PASSED BY
THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU,
MADIKERI CONCURRENT CHARGE OF LABOUR COURT,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN I.D.R.NO.2/2013 AND I.D.R.NO.1/2012
VIDE ANNX-A AND B.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
On 26.04.2018, this Court has granted four weeks time for complying with the office objections failing which the petition stand dismissed without reference to the Bench. There is no compliance of the order. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed after expiry of period of four weeks from 26.04.2018. Today none appears for the petitioner. Hence the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE nm