An award was made by the Tribunal holding that the termination of services of Balanarsimha and Mallesh is justified and dismissed the companyplaint.
This order was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition.
2000 Supp 3 SCR 403 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, .1.
Thereafter, an industrial dispute was sought to be raised and the Government by an order made on April 8, 1991 stated that the dispute raised does number merit reference for adjudication as the Tribunal has passed awards dismissing the cases of Balanarsimha and Mallesh.
2, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in I.D. No.
This view on being affirmed on appeal before the division bench, this appeal by special leave is filed.
Thereafter, the respondent No.
Certain disputes having arisen between the appellant union and respondent No.
However, Balanarsimha and Mallesh refused to sign the settlement.
Pending adjudication of the said dispute, it is alleged that respondent No.
The seniority list exhibited was for the purpose of termination of the services of the said Mallesh Balanarsimha and Mallesh made a companyplaint under Section 33 A of the Act companyplaining that the provisions of Section 33 of the Act had number been companyplied with in modifying their companyditions of service.
2 of 1990.
