IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.955/2016 (S-RES) BETWEEN:
TUMKUR HMT WF-IV VRS EMPLOYEES (2011) ASSOCIATION (R), REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.108, “SRINIKETHANA”, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, NEAR MUSLIM COLONY, 80 FEET ROAD, MAIN ROAD, BATAWADI, TUMKUR-572 103. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.RANGANATHA S. JOIS, ADV.) AND:
1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, BLOCK NO.14, CGO COMPLEX, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110003.
2. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. H.M.T. LTD., HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (WATCHES), M/S. HMT WATCHES LTD., HMT BHAVAN, NO.59, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 032.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. HMT WATCHES LTD., WATCH FACTORY-IV, TUMKUR-572 103. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.MANJUNATH RAO BHONSLE, ADVOCATE FOR R1-ABSENT; SRI.H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO. 32827 OF 2012 DATED 22/09/2012.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH I.A.1/16 THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition, the petitioner therein has filed this appeal. The plea of the petitioner was to consider their claim for refund and release of 10% interim relief recovered from them with interest etc.
2. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submitted that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and disposed off. Therefore the writ petition was dismissed as it would not survive for consideration.
3. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Single Judge felt that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he may raise an industrial dispute. This, the appellant’s counsel considers to be dismissal on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. However, we do not think so. The writ petition has been disposed off in view of the fact that the plea of the petitioner has since been considered by the respondent – Management. Therefore the prayer sought for has already been granted.
We do not find any ground to entertain this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. Pending I.A.1/16 stands dismissed.
sd/- sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sac* CT-RG