IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.4230 OF 2017 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. FESTO CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED, 237 B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOSUR HIGHWAY, BENGALURU-560 099, NOW KNOWN AS FESTO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI K. RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI LOUIS MANOHARAN NO.66, 2ND CROSS, PAMMAGOWDA ROAD, GEETHA MANDIR STREET, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 006, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES.
1. SMT. IYLENE WIFE OF LATE LOUIS MANOHARAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, NO.66, 2ND CROSS, PAMMAGOWDA ROAD, GEETHA MANDIR STREET, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 006.
2. KUM. BONICE JOANA DAUGHTER OF LATE LOUIS MANOHARAN, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 SMT. IYLENE, NO.66, 2ND CROSS, PAMMAGOWDA ROAD, GEETHA MANDIR STREET, J.C. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 006.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K. SAROJINI MUTHANNA, ADV. FOR R-1 & R-2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25/04/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.61188 OF 2016 (L-TER) AND FURTHER SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 31/08/2016 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN COMPLAINT NO.1 OF 2006 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 25-4-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ petition No.61188 of 2016 dismissing the petition, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
2. The plea of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the contentions urged. That except stating that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted, the writ petition has been rejected without reasons. Hence, he pleads that the appeal be allowed. The same is disputed by the respondents.
3. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. The first sentence of the order is that the premise of the petitioner that the Labour Court has not offered him sufficient opportunity is incorrect. We are of the view that the same requires to be considered by the learned single Judge and thereafter to record his opinion. Merely narrating so, in our considered view, is not sufficient. The further reasoning is that the complaint was filed in the year 2006 which was disposed off by the Tribunal in 2016. When the Tribunal takes ten years to dispose off the mater, the appellant cannot be blamed for it. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the contentions advanced require to be considered by the learned Single Judge on merits. Having not considered the same, the order would be unsustainable.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
1) The order dated 25-4-2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.61188 of 2016 is set aside.
2) The writ petition is restored to file.
The writ petition to be considered on merits, in accordance with law.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE rsk/-