FAKIRAVVA W/O SIDDAYYA GURUMATH v. MANAGEMENT OF VISHWANATH KALBURGI
WP/62370/2011 · 2025-04-02
Jyoti Mulimani
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53550 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 53550 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5867 WP No. 62370 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 62370 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN:
FAKIRAVVA W/O SIDDAYYA GURUMATH, AGE: ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: OLD HUBLI, HUBLI.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT.P.SAVADI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MANAGEMENT OF VISHWANATH, KALBURGI DISTILLERIES, HUBLI.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESH.S.GUNDI., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5867 WP No. 62370 of 2011
ORAL ORDER
Sri. Anat.P. Savadi, counsel for the petitioner, and Suresh Gundi, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.
2. The captioned Writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 24.02.2010 passed by the Labor Court Hubballi, in Ref No. 69/2004, on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of a Writ petition. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
3. The short controversy is about the payment of a lump sum amount. The petitioner was working as a bottle washer with the respondent and had rendered valuable service. The petitioner’s grievance is that he was illegally terminated from service. It is pivotal to note that he raised a dispute. He had prayed for reinstatement with full back wages. The Labor Court declined to grant the said relief because of the cancellation of the license of M/S Kalburgi Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. The Labor Court directed the respondent to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 40,000/- to
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5867 WP No. 62370 of 2011
the petitioner. In my view, the award is just and proper, and the same cannot be interfered with.
4. Resultantly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34