Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANU SIVARAMAN, RAJESH RAI K.
Central Silk Board, Represented By Its Member Secretary, Mr. R.R. Okhandiar – Appellant
Versus
S. Ramesha, S/o. Shivaramaiah – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petitions challenge regarding employment scheme (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court examines previous resolutions and orders (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. arguments about the scope of judicial review and appeals (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. writ court's authority under judicial review (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. importance of written reasons for withdrawal (Para 15 , 17) |
| 6. final court order on appeals (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT :
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
Writ Appeal No.260/2023 is filed by the Central Silk Board and Writ Appeal No.468/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union against the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19130/2007 connected with Writ Petition No.20513/2007 (L-RES) and Contempt of Court Case No.950/2023 is filed by the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union for disobedience of the same order.
2. We have heard Shri. Aravind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India along with Shri. Madhukar M Deshpande, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the Secretary, Central Silk Board Employees Union and Shri. Ashok S Haranahalli, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. V.S. Naik, learned ad
Withdrawal of governmental approval for employee benefit schemes must be justified, affirming the entitlement of casual workers to retroactive benefits under established schemes.
The court affirmed that the Industrial Disputes Act allows for adjudication of disputes regarding retirement age, emphasizing the government's role in setting service conditions.
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.
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....
The earlier ruling by the Central Administrative Tribunal was deemed a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the workwoman's claim for reinstatement to be adjudicated afresh.
The High Court ruled that the CGIT has jurisdiction to appoint a commissioner for verifying workmen's entitlements to benefits under an award, clarifying that this falls within the scope of computing....
Point of Law : There was no discretion left with learned Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant a relief in favour of respondents herein to which they were not entitled under the 1....
The court affirmed that dismissal without approval under Section 33(2)(b) is inoperative, and the employee is deemed to continue in service until approval is granted.
Failure to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act renders dismissal void and inoperative, as established by the Supreme Court in Jaipur Zila case.
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
