LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-18

DIRECTOR KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT Vs. G V RAJU MAJOR PRESIDENT KARNATAKA SARKARI VIMA ILAKHE

Decided On March 15, 2012
DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT INSURANCE DEPARTMENT Appellant
V/S
G.V. RAJU, MAJOR, PRESIDENT, KARNATAKA SARKARI VIMA ILAKHE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Karnataka Government Insurance Department [hereinafter, referred to as the "KGID" for the sake of brevity) has assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07/01/2002 passed in W.P. No. 29154/99. By the said order, it has been held that the appellant herein, who was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is an "Industry", within the meaning of Section unamended 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the "I.D.Act" for the sake of brevity). The relevant facts leading up to the filing of this appeal are that the Government of Karnataka being of the opinion that an industrial dispute existed between the workmen and management of the KGID, by order dated 26/10/1994, referred the following points of dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, for adjudication under Section 10(1) of the I.D.Act:-

(2.) The reference was registered as I.D. No. 32/94. After recording evidence, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, passed an award on 26/09/1997. The same was however, set aside in W.P. No. 3018/98, with a direction to re-examine the case on merits. Subsequently, the Tribunal examined the matter and allowed the reference by holding that the workmen are entitled to bonus as prayed for in the reference. The said order was assailed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 20613/80, disposed of on 15/04/1981 and order passed in W.A. No. 839/81 dated 21.01.1987, filed by KGID against the order dated 15.04.1981, held that the award of the Tribunal did not call for any interference and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Department of the State Government has filed this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. They have also filed their synopsis of arguments and list of authorities, which we have perused.