Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
BEML Limited, Represented by its Deputy General Manager Shri R. Nagaraja – Appellant
Versus
B.E.M.L. Canteen Karmikara Sangha, Mysuru – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
1. This writ appeal is preferred challenging the order dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10264/2022 (L-RES).
2. We have heard Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri K.S.Bheemaiah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, Shri V.S.Naik, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1 and Shri N.R.Girisha, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein, challenging the decision of second respondent herein dated 24.01.2022, which was produced as Annexure-K. A direction was sought to the first respondent to grant permission by considering the application dated 29.09.2021, filed by the respondents herein to prosecute the appellant- Company for violation of the terms of the award. The respondents herein had filed the application seeking permission for prosecution of the employer/appellant. The said application was rejected by the Regional Labour Commissioner on the ground that there is a proceeding pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Dispu
Claiming future salary payments under Section 34 is improper while a Section 33C(2) application regarding past dues is pending, as both grievances address the same issue of salary compliance.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act enforces adjudicated wage claims, without re-examining eligibility; established employer-employee relations must be acknowledged.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
Section 33 (2) of I.D. Act reads as conditions of service, etc., to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 33-C(2) and Section 6H(2) in determining the entitlement of workmen to receive enhanced revised wages as per the Wa....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is limited to the recovery of money due to a Workman from....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
