SRI. SHANKAR vs M/S KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD.,
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
RD
DATED THIS THE 03 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
®
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1637 OF 2024 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1626 OF 2024 (L-TER)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1985 OF 2025 (L-TER)
IN WA No. 1637/2024
BETWEEN:
1. WORKMEN OF M/S KARNATAKA
MALLADI BIOTICS LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY SRI HANUMANTHU T,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS
EMPLOYEES UNION,
AGATAHALLI D B HALLI POST,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N G PHADKE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD.,
NOW KNOWN AS EMBIO LTD.,
PLOT NO. 71-74,
TUBINAKERE INDL. AREA,
MANDYA - 571 402,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. J PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.
17692 OF 2018 (L-TER) AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL, AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2024 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 57049 OF 2015 (L-TER)
C/W WP No.17692 OF 2018 (L-TER) IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.
IN WA NO. 1626/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.HANUMANTHU T
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O THAMME GOWDA,
2. SRI. PRASANNA Y K
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O HANUMAIAH ALIAS KARIPPA,
3. SRI. MAHESHA B V
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O VENKATE GOWDA,
4. SRI. HANUMESHA K C
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKANNA
5. SRI LAKSHMI NARASHIMAIAH
OPERATOR
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O HOBHALAIAH
- 3 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
6. HANUMANTHE GOWDA K.H.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O HANUMEGOWDA
7. SRI. THIMAPPA H T .,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O THIMMAIAH
8. SRI. LINGAPPA
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O MARIGOWDA,
9. SRI. NARENDRA D .N
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA,
10. SRI. RAMESHA Y M
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O MADEGOWDA,
11. SRI. BASAVARAJ T P
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O PUTTEGOWDA,
12. SRI. RAVI N
HELPER
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O NAGAIAH,
13. SRI. VERANNARADHYA K.,
TECHNICAL (FITTER)
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O KUMARADHYA
14. SRI. RAVIKUMARA S .A
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
- 4 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
S/O ANKEGOWDA,
15. SRI. PANCHALINGA K P.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O PANCHEGOWDA,
16. SRI. NAGARAJ
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA,
17. SRI. SHIVALINGEGOWDA,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O H NINGEGOWDA,
18. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O SIDDAIAH
19. SRI. MALLESHA K M.,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O MALLAIAH,
20. SRI. MANJU K.C.,
SR. OPERTOR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O CHOWDEGOWDA,
21. SRI. SHIVARUDRAPPA
JR. ASSISTANT
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O MADAPPA
22. SRI. PRASADA M P N
SR. ASST. (STORES)
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O K PURUSHOTHAM
23. SRI. BANDI GOWDA
- 5 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O JAVAREGOWDA,
24. SRI. SHIVARAMU D K.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNA
25. SRI. MANCHE GOWDA H.S.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SIDDAPPA
26. SRI. SUBASH Y.S.,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE SHANAKARLINGEGOWDA,
27. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S.,,
OPEARTOAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O ATE MALLEGOWDA,
28. SRI. KRISHNE GOWDA M.S.,
SR. OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
S/O SANNEGOWDA,
29. SRI. BASAVARAJA H .E
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O ERAIAH,
30. SRI. RAJANNA
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAJAVARAIAH,
31. SRI. NINGARAJA K
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O KALASHETTY
- 6 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
32. SRI. SHANBOG B.L,
TYPIST,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA,
33. SRI. MAHESHA C
OPERATOR,
COMPRESSOR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANNAPPA,
34. SRI. BORE GOWDA
TECHNICAL (ELEC.)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDARAMARADHYA,
35. SRI. PUTTARAMARADHYA S
BOILER OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDARAMARADHYA,
36. SRI. SHVASHANKARA B.,
TECHNICIAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O BORAIAH
37. SRI. SHIVALINGIAH M.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O MADAIAH
38. SRI. RAMAIAH T.P.,
SR. OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O PUTTAIAH
39. SRI BOREGOWDA S.,
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O SIDDEGOWDA,
40. SRI. PRASADA S .N
- 7 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
SR. TECHNCIAN (FITTER)
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O K.V MAHALINGA BHATTA
41. SRI. PUTTASWAMY Y .H.,
JR. ASSISTANT
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE NATHAPPA ALIAS HANUMAIAH,
42. SRI. CHIKKASIDDEGOWDA
OPERATOR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKA ANKEGOWDA,
43. SRI. SUNDARA H.C.,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKA BORAIAH,
44. SRI. LINGANNA
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE NINGANNA,
MOGAIAH,
45. SRI. NAGARAJA D.T.,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O THIMMEGOWDA, ALIAS ANNAIAH,
46. SRI. GIRIDHARA R.,
HELPER,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O RAJANNA M.K.,
47. SRI. SIDDEGOWDA
OPERATOR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O SIDDGOWDA
48. SRI BALAVEDRA SIMON
SR. TECHNICIAN
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
- 8 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
S/O WILLION RAJ
49. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S G
OPERATOR
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O GOPALAIAH
50. DECEASED GURUPRASAD S L
HELPER
REP BY SMT MANJUSHREE
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O GURUPRASAD S L
51. DECEASED KUMARA J
HELPER
REP BY SMT H M MAMATHA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O OF KUMARA J
52. DECEASED NARASHIMAMURTHY S N
HELPER
REP BY SMT MANJULA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
W/O NARASHIMAMURTHY S N
53. DECEASED SHIVARAJU
HELPER
REP BY SMT LAKSHMI DEVI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O SHIVARAJU
54. DECEASED SHIVARAJU K
SR. ASST. (ADMN)
REP BY SMT DHANALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
W/O SHIVARAJU K
55. DECEASED THIMMAIAH
HELPER
REP BY SMT JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
W/O THIMMAIAH
- 9 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
56. DECEASED VISHWANATH SHASTRY
SR. OPERATOR (COMPRESSOR)
REP BY SMT DEEPA VISHWANATH SHASTRY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O VISHWANATH SHASTRY
57. DECEASED BASAVARAJ B K
HELPER
REP BY SMT MANJULA K V
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
W/O BASAVARAJ B K
ALL ARE C/O SRI. HANUMANTHU T.,
GENERAL SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS EMPLOYEES UNION
AGATAHALLI, D.B HALLI POST,
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. AVANI CHOKSHI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S.KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD.,
NOW KNOWN AS EMBIO LTD.,
PLT NO.71-74, TUBINAKERE INDL. AREA,
MANDYA 571 402
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MARIDEVAIAH
3. HANUMANTHAIAH Y V
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O VENKATESH
4. SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O BASAVAIAH,
5. MANOHARAN
- 10 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
S/O RAJAIAH,
6. SHANKARA Y.C.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O CHIKKALINGAIAH,
7. SRI. MAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O MAYIGASHETTY
8. SRI. SHANKAR Y.H.
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O PIDEGOWDRU HANUMAIAH
9. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA H.N.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O NINGAPPA
10. SRI. VENKAPPA TALWAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O AYYAPPA TALWAR,
11. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY B
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O C. BASAVARAJAPPA,
12. SRI. HANUMANTHA.Y.C.A
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O MOLLEKENCHANA DEVAIAH,
13. SRI NARASHIMARAJU S C
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKADASAHEGGADE,
14. SRI NINGANNA.C
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
15. SRI JAYAKUMARA Y S
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASAIAH,
- 11 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
16. SRI JOKEN SAGAYANATHAN
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O ANTONY,
17. SRI PUTTASWAMY Y M
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O MOTAIAH
18. SRI. SOMASHEKAR K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
19. SRI. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
20. NAGARAJAMURTHY Y S
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O NINGAIAH
21. SRI YOGESHA Y M
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O MOTALINGEGOWDA
22. SRI MANJUNATHA D
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O DEVEGOWDA,
23. BHARATHI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAVI Y H
24. SRI NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
F/O LATE GOPALA Y N
Nos. 2 TO 25 ARE AT
C/O M/S KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS,
EMPLOYEES UNION,
KALYANA BHAVANA BUILDING,
THYAGARAJA ROAD, MYSURU-570 023
- 12 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
25. K L CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O SHRI LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KALMANTIDODDI,
KERGODI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-571 446
26. M SHIVARAJU
S/O MALLAIAH,
AGED 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.766, DODDA ARASINAKERE
CHIKKAMARIGOWDA NAGAR,
CHIKKA ARASINAKERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TQ., MANDYA DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-571 422
...RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN WP NO.57049/2015 AND WP.No.17692/2018
AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 27/08/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP NO.57049/2015, C/W 17692/2018, IN SO
FAR AS THE APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.
IN WA NO. 1985/2025
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHANKAR
S/O MARIDEVAIAH
SINCE DECEASED
BY HIS WIFE SMT P ANITHA
W/O SHANKARA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
2. SRI HANUMANTHAIAH Y V
S/O VENKATESH
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SRI SOMASHEKAR
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
- 13 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
4. SRI MANOHARAN
S/O RAJAIAH
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
5. SRI SHANKARA Y C
S/O CHIKKLINGAIAH
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
6. SRI MAYAPPA
S/O MAYIGASHETTY
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
7. SRI SHANKAR Y H
S/O PIDEGOWDRU HANUMAIAH
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
8. SRI MAHADEVAPPA H N
S/O NINGAPPA
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS,
9. SRI VENKAPPA TALWAR
S/O AYYAPPA TALWAR
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
10. SRI SHIVAKUMAR SWAMY B
S/O C BASAVARAJAPPA
AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS,
11. SRI HANUMANTHA Y C
S/O MOLLEKENCHANA DEVAIAH
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
12. SRI NARASHIMRAJU S C
S/O CHIKKADSAHEGGADE
AGE ABOUT 66 YEARS,
13. SRI NINGANNA C
S/O LATE CHIKKANNA
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
14. SRI JAYAKUMARA Y S
S/O SRINIVASAIAH
- 14 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED
REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE
SMT. A.S.PADHMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
15. SRI JOKEN SAGAYANATHAN
S/O ANTONY
AGE ABOUT 69 YEARS,
16. SRI PUTTASWAMY Y M
S/O MOTAIAH
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS,
17. SRI SOMASHEKAR K
S/O KEMPEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
18. SRI MANJU
S/O KARIYAPPA
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
19. SRI NAGARAJAMURTHY Y S
S/O NINGAIAH
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
20. SRI YOGESHA Y M
S/O MOTALINGEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
21. SRI MANJUNATHA D
S/O DEVEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
22. SMT BHARATHI
W/O LATE RAVI Y H
AGE ABOUT 45 YEARS,
23. SRI NINGEGOWDA
F/O LATE GOPALA Y N
AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS,
APPELLANTS No.1-22
- 15 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
R/AT C/O M/S. KARNATAKA
MALLADI BIOTICS EMPLOYEES UNION,
KALYANA BHAVANA BUILDING,
THYAGARAJA ROAD,
MYSURU.
24. M SHIVARAJU
S/O SHRI MALLAIAH
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT DOOR NO 766
DODDARASINAKERE,
CHIKKAMRIGOWDA NAGARA,
CHIKKARASANIKERE HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT , KARNATAKA 571422
25. K L CHANNAKESHAVA
S/O SHRI LINGEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT KALMANTIDODDI
KERGODI HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 571446
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N.G.PHADKE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS LTD.,
NOW KNOW AS EMBIO LTD
POLT NO 71-74,
TUBINKERE INDUSTRIAL AREA
MANDYA - 571402
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. SRI GURUPRASAD S L
S/O K LINGAIAH
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
3. SRI HANUMANTHU T
S/O THAMME GOWDA
- 16 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
4. SRI PRSANNA Y K
S/O HANUMAIAH ALIAS KARIAPPA
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
5. SRI MAHESHA B V
S/O VENKATEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
6. SRI HANUMESHA K C
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
7. SRI LAKSHMI NARASHIMAIAH
S/O HOBHALAIAH
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
8. SRI HANUMANTHE GOWDA K H
S/O HANUMEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS,
9. SRI THIMAPPA H T
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,
10. SRI KUMARA J
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
11. SRI LINGAPPA
S/O MARIGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
12. SRI NARENDRA D N
S/O NARASIMHEGOWA
AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,
13. SRI RAMESHA Y M
S/O MADEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
14. SRI BASVARAJA T P
- 17 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
S/O PUTTEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS,
15. SRI RAVI N
S/O NAGAIAH
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
16. SRI VERANNARADHAYA K
S/O KUMARARADHYA
AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS,
17. SRI RAVIKUMARA S A
S/O ANKEGOWDA AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
18. SRI PANCHALINGA K P
S/O PANCHEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
19. SRI NAGARAJ
S/O CHIKKAPUTTEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
20. SRI NARASHIMAMURTHY S N
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGE ABOUT 61 YEARS,
21. SRI SHIVALINGEGOWDA
S/O H NINGEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
22. SRI KEMPEGOWDA
S/O SIDDAIAH AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
23. SRI SHIVARAJU
S/O PUTTASHETTY
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
24. SRI MALLESHA K M
S/O MALLAIAH
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
25. SRI MANJUK C
S/O CHOWDEGOWDA
- 18 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
AGE 55 YEARS,
26. SRI SHIVARAJU K
S/O KARIAYAIAH
AGE ABOUT66 YEARS,
27. SRI THIMMAIAH
S/O HATTIGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 72 YEARS,
28. SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA
S/O MADAPPA AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
29. SRI PRASAD M P N
S/O PURUSHOTHAM K
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
30. SRI BANDI GOWDA
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
31. SRI SHIVARAMU D K
S/O KRISHNA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
32. SRI MANCHE GOWDA H S
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
33. SRI SUBASH Y S
S/O SHANKARALINGEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
34. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S M
S/O LATE MALLEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
35. SRI KRISHNEGOWDA M S
S/O SANNEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
36. SRI BASAVARAJA H E
S/O ERAIAH
- 19 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS,
37. SRI RAJANNA
S/O CHIKKAJAVARAIAH
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
38. SRI NINGARAJA K
S/O KALASHETTY
AGE ABOUT 51 YEARS,
39. SRI SHANBOG B L
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS,
40. SRI MAHESHA C
S/O CHANNAPPA
AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,
41. SRI BOREGOWDA
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS,
42. SRI PUTTARAMARADHYA S
S/O LATE SIDDARAMARADHYA
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
43. SRI SHIVASHANKAR B
S/O BORAIAH
AGE ABOUT 65 YEARS,
44. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH M
S/O MADAIAH
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
45. SRI RAMAIAH T P
S/O PUTTAIAH
AGE ABOUT 62YEARS,
46. SRI BOREGOWDA S
S/O SIDDEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 54 YEARS,
47. SRI PRASADA S N
- 20 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
S/O K V MAHALINGA BHATTA
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
48. SRI PUTTASWAMY Y H
S/O LATE NATHAPPA ALIAS HANUMAIAH
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
49. SRI CHIKKASIDDEGOWDA
S/O CHIKKA ANKEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS,
50. SRI SUNDARA H C
S/O CHIKKA BORAIAH
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS,
51. SRI LINGANNA
S/O LATE NINGANNA MOGAIAH
AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS,
52. SRI NAGARAJA D T
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA ALIAS ANNAIAH
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS,
53. SRI GIRIDHARA R
S/O RAJANNA M K
AGE ABOUT 56 YEARS,
54. SRI VISHWANATH SASTRY
S/O K CHANDRASHEKARASASTRY
AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS,
55. SRI SIDDEGOWDA
S/O SIDDEGOWDA
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
56. SRI BALAVENDRA SIMON
S/O WILLION RAJ
AGE ABOUT 52 YEARS,
57. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY S G
S/O GOPALAIAH
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS,
- 21 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
58. SRI BASAVARAJ B K
S/O B KARIYAPPA
AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R2-59 ARE R/AT C/O
M/S. KARNATAKA MALLADI BIOTICS
EMPLOYEES UNION,
KALYANA BHAVANA BUILDING,
THYAGARAJA ROAD MYSURU
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J.PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R25 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
27/08/2024 IN WP NO.57049/2015 AND CONSEQUENTLY
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
D K SINGH., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present batch of three Intra Court appeals have been
filed impugning the common judgment and order dated
27.08.2024 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.57049/2015
connected with W.P.No.17692/2018.
- 22 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
2. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants-
Workmen challenging the award dated 21.07.2015 passed by
the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore in Reference No.156/2010.
The Industrial Tribunal had held that laying-off the 84 workmen
with effect from 22.06.2009 by the respondent-Establishment
was not in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act' for the sake of
brevity) and as the workmen had failed to establish that the
management had employed more than 100 workers as on the
date of declaring lay-off and retrenching 84 workers, the
Labour Court has rejected the reference and held that the
workmen were not entitled to any relief.
3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment
and order has been of the opinion that the security guards(17
in numbers) and 28 contract labours/casual workers working in
the establishment during the relevant period cannot be termed
as 'Workmen' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
4. For the purpose of computing the total number of
workmen employed on an average per working day in the
preceding 12 months, as contemplated under Section 25K of
- 23 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
the ID Act, only those who meet the definition of 'Workmen'
under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act are to be considered.
5. The learned Single Judge has been of the opinion
that in absence of any material to show that the security
guards and the contract labourers were directly employed by
the management, they cannot be treated as a 'workmen' under
the definition of 'Workmen' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act so
as to compute the total number of workmen under Section 25K
of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge has also held that the
burden of proof rested on the workmen to establish that more
than 100 workmen were employed before declaring lay off, and
the workmen failed to discharge this burden. An application
filed by the workmen directing the respondent-management to
provide the muster rolls cannot establish that the workmen had
discharged the burden which was cast upon them to show that
the respondent-management employed more than 100
workers. Additionally, no adverse inference can be drawn
against the management for non-production of any document
like attendance register. The learned single judge therefore,
dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order,
holding that the contract workers would not be considered as
- 24 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
the workmen under the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act
as the workmen had failed to establish that the security guards
were directly employed by the management. Consequently, as
there were less than 100 workmen at the time of declaring lay-
off, the Tribunal rightly rejected the reference and the learned
Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
6. The only questions involved in present appeals are:
i. Whether the respondent-establishment had
employed not less than 100 workmen in the
factory on all the working days on an average
per day for preceding 12 months i.e., from
05.08.2008 to 06.08.2009.
ii. Whether designating certain workmen as
monthly-rated workmen, workmen on
contract/casual basis and some workmen
engaged as security guards and housekeeping
personnel directly apart from hiring workmen
from contractors come within the definition of
workmen under Section 2(s) for the purpose of
computing the total number of workmen
working in the establishment for the preceding
12 months from 05.08.2008 to 06.08.2009.
- 25 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
iii. If this Court is of the opinion that the
respondent-establishment had employed more
than 100 workmen in its factory on all the
working days on an average per day for the
preceding 12 months from 05.08.2008 to
06.08.2009 and as the respondent-
establishment did not obtain permission from
the concerned authorities while placing the
workmen under lay-off with effect from
22.06.2009 or retrenching them later on
06.08.2009, and in the process had violated
the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (m)
and 25 (n) of the ID Act, what relief are the
workmen would be entitled to?
7. The facts for the purpose of deciding the present
appeals are stated as under:
a. The respondent-management is in the business of
manufacturing products against the orders placed by the
pharmaceutical companies, utilizing raw materials provided by
those customers. The respondent-establishment has been a
profitable venture and has invested in various enterprises. The
workers' union representing the workmen of the establishment
had entered into three wage settlements, while the last wage
settlement ended/expired on 31.03.2009. In view of the rising
cost of living, the workmen submitted a charter of demands
- 26 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
before the management on 27.03.2009 to be considered with
effect from 01.04.2009. The representatives of the
management led by its General Manager had a discussion with
the office bearers of the workers' union about the charter of
demands and stated that they required additional time to
discuss about charter of demands submitted by the workmen.
b. It is the case of the workmen that, in order to exert
pressure on them, the management placed the counter-
demand for reduction of wages by 20%. Subsequently, a
meeting was held between the management and the workers'
representative/union on 29.05.2009. The workmen further
alleged that the Management threatened to resort to lay-offs,
lock-out etc. Later, as an additional pressure tactic, the
management introduced voluntary retirement scheme(VRS), to
force the workmen to drop their demands. Having failed in all
these tactics, the management laid-off most of the workmen
with effect from 22.06.2009 and subsequently, retrenched 84
workmen in the first stage/phase. Later, additional workmen
were retrenched and 17 others were ordered to be transferred
to distant locations to make them succumb to the pressure and
agree for VRS or quit the factory.
- 27 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
c. According to the workmen, the management had
employed more than 100 workmen at the relevant point of
time, calling them as monthly-rated workmen, contract
workmen. Besides, the management had engaged number of
other persons as security guards and housekeeping personnel.
The management laid off the workmen from 22.06.2009 and
subsequently retrenched 84 workmen or declared a lockout of
the factory without obtaining prior permission from the
or declaring lockout of the factory. It is
competent authority
submitted that the declaring lay-off from 22.06.2009 and for
the retrenchment of 84 workers, the government had made a
reference to the industrial tribunal in view of failure of
conciliation proceedings. The Government vide order
No.Kaa.E.107 IDM 2010 dated 28.05.2010 under Section
10(1)(c)/(d) of the ID Act referred the following disputes for
adjudication:
"1. The Management of M/s. Karnataka Malladi
Biotech Ltd., Tubinakere, Mandya District, has
contended that the Junior Officers/Supervisors
working in the factory do not fall under the definition
of a "Workman"(or worker) under the industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, even though more than 100
- 28 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
workers are employed and working, whether the
action of the management in declaring a lay-off on
22.06.2009 without obtaining permission from the
appropriate authority as per the rules, and
subsequently retrenching 84 workmen on
06.08.2009, is justified/legal?
2. If it is not justified/legal, what
relief/compensation are the workmen entitled to?
3. Whether the action of M/s. Karnataka Malladi
Biotech Ltd., Tubinakere, Mandya District, in first
declaring a lay-off and subsequently retrenching 84
workmen, citing reasons that raw material are
unavailable and manufactured goods have
accumulated in stock without being sold, is
justified/legal?"
d. The workmen besides submitting that the lay-off
was in violation of Sections 25M and 25N also submitted that
the reasons assigned by the management to lay-off and
retrenchment of 84 workmen were not true. The management
prior to laying-off and retrenching the workmen got all the raw
materials used and drugs manufactured which were packed and
transported to its sister concern at Mahad in Maharashtra. Lay-
off in the factory was pre-planned to clear all the existing goods
- 29 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
with malafide intention so as to exert pressure on the workmen
to agree for withdrawal of charter of demands. Therefore, they
submitted that the action of the respondent-Management in
laying-off and retrenching the workmen without following
mandatory provisions of the ID Act was illegal and unjust and
sought a direction that the management should be directed to
pay full wages from 22.06.2009 till their reinstatement into the
service with all consequential benefits and costs.
8. On the other hand, the case of the management
before the Industrial Tribunal was that the company was
incorporated in May 1991 for manufacturing bulk drugs. The
company had problem of tying-up funds for financing the
project to set up at Mandya. Due to delay on the part of
financial institutions in sanction of funds, commissioning of the
plant got delayed. The management could carry on business
only for 2 years from 1995 to 1997. As the management was
not getting the funds from the financial institutions, it closed its
operation from June 1997 to August 1998 and the operation
was restarted in August 1998 with the support of an associate
company, Emmellen Biotech Pharmaceutical Ltd., (EBPL). The
operations were carried on at a very low capacity utilization and
- 30 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
the company incurred heavy losses during 1997-98, 1998-99.
The bankers of the respondent-management had filed an
application for recovery before the DRT, Bengaluru in January,
1999.
9. In the meantime, the company became sick
company and made a reference under Section 15(1) of the Sick
Industrial Companies (Spl. Provisions) Act 1985 under BIFR.
The BIFR in August 1999 declared the company sick and the
IDBI was appointed as Operating Agency. On 03.06.2003, BIFR
sanctioned a scheme of rehabilitation of the company with the
consent of all the lenders for payment of Rs.15 crores in 12
quarterly instalments. The company again suffered huge losses
and accumulated losses increased to Rs.30.17 crores in
September 2008 from Rs.23.50 crores during February 2007.
In spite of loss incurred by the company, the workmen place
before the management unreasonable charter of demands.
Although the company was not in a position to fulfill any of the
demands, in order to maintain good industrial relations, it had
agreed to fulfill some of their demands. The management had
initiated disciplinary proceedings against many indisciplined and
erred workers. Thereafter, as a first step towards redressal of
- 31 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
situation, the management requested the workers to accept
20% reduction in the wages but the workers' union refused to
accept reduction in wages. The management announced
voluntary retirement scheme which was kept open from
08.06.2009 to 10.07.2009, but not a single workman opted for
VRS. The company faced problem of non-availability of the raw
materials for the products and accumulation of stock of
products manufactured by the factory and exorbitant increase
in the raw material prices. It had no option but to lay-off the
workmen and supervisory staff from 22.06.2009 to 06.07.2009
as temporary measure and as no solution was found, the lay-
off period was extended by 10 days i.e., from 07.07.2009 to
16.07.2009 and further extended from 17.07.2009 to
26.07.2009 and again from 27.07.2009 to 05.08.2009.
10. Since the respondent-management could not come
out of the problem, retrenched 84 out of 92 workmen on
06.08.2009. At the time of laying-off the management, had
engaged 92 workmen. They placed reliance on the register of
attendance for the previous 12 months that which according to
them would clearly indicate that the management had engaged
- 32 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
only 92 workers. The number of workers for the preceding 12
months never reached to 100.
11. The Tribunal held that initial burden was on the
workmen to establish that there were more than 100 workers
working with the management as on the date of declaring lay-
off and retrenching 84 workmen. The Tribunal had held that
while computing total number of workmen for the purpose of
Section 25K of the ID Act, workers coming within the definition
of Section 2(s) of the ID Act alone would be considered.
Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the contract labourers
would not be treated as direct employee of the management.
12. The Tribunal had held that on appreciation of the
evidence of management coupled with documentary evidence
in Ex.M1 to Ex.M40, it would be clear that on the date of
declaring lay-off and retrenching 84 workmen, there were only
92 regular workers in the factory. On examination of the
attendance register from July-2008 to August 2009 in Ex.M5 to
Ex.M31, the number of regular employees in the company
never crossed 100. The Tribunal also drew an inference and
held that if the contract/casual labours and security guards
- 33 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
were appointed as regular workmen in the said factory, their
names should have been appeared in the attendance register.
There was no material to treat the casual labourers, contract
workers and the security guards as regular workers of the
management. Their names did not find place in the attendance
register. Therefore, they would not come within the ambit of
Section 2(s) of the ID Act for the purpose of computing the
total number of workers under Section 25 (k). The reference
was therefore answered against the workmen and it was
dismissed.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants-workmen
has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate the wide and inclusive definition of 'workman' under
Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Even the casual workers, contract
labours and security personnel employed in connection with the
establishment were liable to be included while computing the
number of workmen under Section 25K of the ID Act. It is
submitted that there was no dispute that the respondent-
establishment had employed 92 permanent workmen, 17
security personnel and 28 contract/casual labours besides other
ancillary workers and therefore, the total workforce exceeded
- 34 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
100 workmen. Even the management witness in his deposition
MW.1 had stated as under:
"It is true that I had appointed security people
to look after Mandya Plant, apart from 92 workmen,
the witness volunteers that they were not permanent
workers and I say that they were on contract basis.
Further, I say that even to this date some security
people are looking after the Plant and Machinery at
Mandya. I further say that they are looking after
security matters, guarding the premises. But further
stated that the names of security staff are not
mentioned in Ex.M5 to M31. The names of contract
workers are also not mentioned in the said
documents. further the witness say occasionally
required or if at all required or not mentioned.
…………………….. It is true that one K. K. Satish and
Nagraj were working in Mandya factory. Further, I
say that I do not know whether they were Welder or
Electrician respectively."
14. The submission is that evidence of several workmen
witnesses clearly established that the actual workforce
strength and the Tribunal as well the learned Single Judge
erred in discharging such evidence without proper justification.
- 35 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
15. The learned counsel for the appellants has also
submitted the management deliberately withheld relevant
employment records, despite the order dated 17.08.2012
passed by the Tribunal for production of the documents,
including muster rolls, wage register, attendance registers of
the contract labourers and other employment records. The
submission is that the Tribunal as well as the learned Single
Judge have incorrectly held that an adverse inference ought not
to have been drawn against the management for non-
production of the documents, despite the direction given by the
Tribunal.
16. Once the evidence of 92 permanent workmen,
security personnel and alleged contract/casual labourers was
not in dispute and the workmen had laid the foundation of their
case, non-production of the documents ought to have been
held against the management and adverse inference should
have been drawn.
17. It is submitted that the respondent-management
exercised supervision, control and administrative authority over
the security guards (17 in numbers) contract/casual labourers
(28 in numbers). Section 2(s) does not state that a person
- 36 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
must be permanently employed to qualify as a "workman." A
careful reading of the definition would reveal that any person
employed in the industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled or
technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or
reward is a workman for the purposes of any proceedings under
the ID Act. Temporary, casual or permanent status are not the
terms used to determine whether a person comes within the
definition of workman or not. It simply provides that if any
person is employed in an industry to do manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational etc. work for hire or reward, he
would be a workman for any proceedings under the Act.
18. The submission is that if one adds the number of
security personnel and the contract/casual labourers to the 92
permanent workmen, it would be evident that the
establishment had employed more than 100 workmen in the
preceding 12 months prior to the date of lay-off as provided
under Section 25K, the provisions of Chapter V-B of the ID Act
would be applicable in the case of the establishment.
19. Section 25M provides that no workman whose name
is borne on the muster rolls of an industrial establishment to
- 37 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
which Chapter V-B applies shall be laid-off by the employer
except with the prior permission of the State Government or
such authority as may be specified by the State Government by
notification in the Official Gazette. Similarly Section 25N
provides that no workman employed in any industrial
establishment to which Chapter V-B applies. who has been in
continuous service for not less than one year shall be
retrenched by the employer unless the workman had been
given three months' notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the
workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the
period of the notice and prior permission of the appropriate
Government or such authority has been obtained on an
application made in his way.
20. It is undisputed that the respondent-management
did not make any application for laying-off or retrenchment of
the workmen. Therefore, the entire action of the respondent-
management in laying-off the workmen and their retrenchment
got vitiated.
21. Sub-section (7) of Section 25 N provides that where
no application for permission under sub-section (1) of Section
- 38 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
25N is made, or where permission for any retrenchment has
been refused, such retrenchment shall be deemed to be illegal
from the date on which the notice of retrenchment was given to
the workman and the workman shall be entitled to all the
benefits under any law for the time being in force as if no
notice had been given.
22. It is submitted that the Industrial Tribunal and the
learned Single Judge while interpreting the definition of
workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, failed to draw an
adverse inference against the respondent-management. The
respondent-management deliberately withheld the relevant
employment records including muster rolls, wage register,
attendance register of contract/casual labourers and other
employment records despite direction issued by the Tribunal. It
is, therefore, submitted that the lay-off dated 22.06.2009, the
retrenchment of 84 workers be held illegal as they were in
violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25 M and 25
N of the ID Act and consequently, the respondent-management
should be directed to pay wages to the workmen from the date
of retrenchment till the date of reinstatement.
- 39 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
23. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent has submitted that the Tribunal as well as the
learned Single Judge have considered the evidence brought on
record and upon proper appreciation of the evidence they have
recorded the finding of fact that the respondent-management
did not employ more than 92 workmen during the relevant
period and therefore, Chapter V-B of the ID Act would have no
application. It is further submitted that the management had
produced attendance registers and employment records for the
relevant period which would clearly establish that the workforce
strength remained below the statutory threshold prescribed
under Section 25 K of the Act ( i.e., 100 workers) required for
application of Chapter V-B of the ID Act.
24. It is submitted that the appellants had failed to
produce any reliable documents or evidence to establish that
the contract labourers, security personnels and casual workers
were directly employed by the management. Except for oral
assertions, nothing was brought on record to override the
documentary evidence. The contract labourers and security
personnel were not regular employees of the establishment,
and therefore, they would not be treated as workmen in the
- 40 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
establishment for the purposes of Section 25 K of the ID Act.
The management had justified reasons for resorting to lay-off
and retrenchment, as the establishment had suffered severe
financial losses, the production activities were adversely
affected and there was shortage of raw materials. The
accumulation of stock rendered operations economically
unviable. It is further submitted that an adverse inference could
not be drawn in absence of prima facie case established by the
workmen. The management had substantially complied with
the production of records and there was no deliberate
suppression of the records from the Tribunal. It is further
submitted that as the concurrent findings of fact should not be
interfered by this Court, the writ appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
25. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties.
26. The facts are not much in dispute. There is no
dispute that there were 92 regular workmen working in the
establishment in 12 months preceding to the date of lay off.
The only question is whether the security personnel (17 in
number) and the contract/casual labours can be treated as
- 41 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
workmen under the definition clause i.e. Section 2(s) of the ID
Act. The MW.1, has admitted that "he cannot say that during
the period 2006 to 2009, he had employed some workmen
through Efficient Security and Detective Bureau, Mysore;
though he had appointed a few security people, they are not
permanent workers and they are only on contract basis", the
question is that since the security personnel have been directly
appointed by the management and they were working under
direct supervision, control and under the administrative
authority, whether they would come within the definition of
"workmen" under Section 2(s) or not?
27. When the workmen in their petition have specifically
stated that as many as 28 workmen were appointed on
contract basis for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010,
on month wise salary and wages and the salary was paid to
them in their accounts maintained in the State Bank of India,
Mandya Main Branch, and that the 17 others were employed as
security guards by the management giving their details, the
issue is whether they should be treated as the workmen within
the ambit of Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
- 42 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
28. Section 2(s) of the ID Act reads as under:
"workman" means any person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled,
skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory
work for hire or reward, whether the terms of
employment be express or implied, and for the purposes
of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an
industrial dispute, includes any such person who has
been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection
with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose
dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any such person."
29. From perusal of definition of workman as provided
under Section 2(s), the concept 'regular employee is not
employed in the definition as provided under Section 2 (s)'. Any
person who is employed in an industry and he is paid
wages/reward for performing manual, unskilled, skill, technical,
operational, supervisory work for hire or reward is a workman.
The nature of employment i.e., temporary or regular, is not
relevant to mention whether a person employed in an industry
is a workman or not? We are therefore of the considered view
that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that except for
92 workmen the security guards and the other persons
- 43 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
employed on contract/casual basis were not workmen is not
correct.
30. The Supreme Court in several pronouncements has
explained the definition of "Workman" under Section 2(s) of the
ID Act. Relevant extracts of few decisions are given hereunder
in pargraphs 16 and 26 of SUDARSHAN RAJPOOT V. U.P.
SRTC, [(2015) 2 SCC 317] it has been held as under:
16.
" The respondent Corporation has
neither produced documentary evidence nor
showed before the Labour Court that the
appellant workman was appointed on
contract basis. The fact that he deposited Rs
2000 towards security amount with the
respondent Corporation indicates that he
was working as a driver on a permanent
basis. In view of Schedule V, Item 10 of the
ID Act, 1947 the respondent Corporation is
prohibited from engaging the appellant
workman as a badli, casual or temporary
workman to work on permanent basis. The
fact that he had been continuously working
for more than 3 years and he had rendered
more than 240 days of service as the driver
in a calendar year until his termination order
and yet he is being engaged on a contractual
- 44 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
basis in the respondent Corporation is
statutorily prohibited. The same amounts to
an unfair labour practice as defined under
Section 2(ra) read with Section 25-T, which
action of the Corporation is punishable under
Section 25-U of the ID Act. This legal
position is settled by this Court in Chief
Conservator of Forests case [Chief
Conservator of Forests v. Jagannath Maruti
Kondhare, (1996) 2 SCC 293 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 500] wherein it was held as under :
(SCC pp. 302-03, para 22)
“22. … In our opinion, it would be
permissible on facts of a particular case to
draw the inference mentioned in the second
part of the item, if badlis, casuals or
temporaries are continued as such for years.
We further state that the present was such a
case inasmuch as from the materials on
record we are satisfied that the 25 workmen
who went to the Industrial Court of Pune
(and 15 to the Industrial Court,
Ahmednagar) had been kept as casuals for
long years with the primary object of
depriving them of the status of permanent
employees inasmuch as giving of this status
would have required the employer to pay the
workmen at a rate higher than the one fixed
- 45 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
under the Minimum Wages Act. We can think
of no other possible object as, it may be
remembered, that the Pachgaon Parwati
Scheme was intended to cater to the
recreational and educational aspirations also
of the populace, which are not ephemeral
objects, but par excellence permanent. We
would say the same about environment-
pollution-care work of Ahmednagar, whose
need is on the increase because of increase
in pollution. Permanency is thus writ large on
the face of both the types of work. If, even
in such projects, persons are kept in jobs on
casual basis for years the object manifests
itself; no scrutiny is required. We, therefore,
answer the second question also against the
appellants.”
26. In view of the aforesaid statement of law
laid down by this Court after adverting to the
powers of the Industrial Tribunal and the
Labour Court as interpreted by this Court in
the earlier decisions referred to supra, the
said principle is aptly applicable to the fact
situation of the case on hand, for the reason
that the Labour Court recorded a finding of
fact in favour of the workman that the
termination of services of the appellant
herein is not legal and valid and further
- 46 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
reaffirmed the said finding and also clearly
held that the plea taken in the order of
termination that he was appointed on
contract basis as a driver is not proved by
producing cogent evidence. Further, we hold
that even if the plea of the employer is
accepted, extracting work though of
permanent nature continuously for more
than three years, the alleged employment on
contract basis is wholly impermissible.
Therefore, we have held that it amounts to
an unfair labour practice as defined under
Section 2(ra) of the ID Act, 1947 read with
Section 25-T which is prohibited under
Section 25-U, Chapter V-C of the ID Act,
1947. We have to hold that the judgment of
the High Court in reversing the award is not
legal and the same is set aside by us."
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. V.
31. Similarly in
A. SANKARALINGAM [(2008) 10 SCC 698] at paragraphs
13, 14 and 18 it has been held as under:
" 13. On the contrary, the
preponderance of judicial opinion that a
workman working even on a part-time
basis would be entitled to benefit of
Section 25-F of the Act is clear from the
various judgments which we have
referred to above. In Silver Jubilee
Tailoring House case [(1974) 3 SCC 498 :
- 47 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
1974 SCC (L&S) 31] which is a judgment
rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, the question was as to whether
the workers who were paid on piece-rate
basis though working in the shop, were
workmen in terms of Section 2(s) of the
Act. That is what the Court had to say:
(SCC p. 502, para 11)
“11. The question for decision was
whether the agarias were workmen as
defined by Section 2(s) of the Industrial
Disputes Act of 1947 or whether they
were independent contractors. The Court
said that the prima facie test to
determine whether there was relationship
between employer and employee is the
existence of the right in the master to
supervise and control the work done by
the servant not only in the matter of
directing what work the employee is to do
but also the manner in which he has to
do the work. In other words, the proper
test according to this Court is, whether or
not the master has the right to control
the manner of execution of the work. The
Court further said that the nature of (sic)
extent of the control might vary from
business to business and is by its nature
incapable of precise definition, that it is
not necessary for holding that a person is
an employee, that the employer should
be proved to have exercised control over
his work, that even the test of control
over the manner of work is not one of
universal application and that there are
many contracts in which the master could
not control the manner in which the work
was done.”
(emphasis supplied)
For arriving at this conclusion, the
Supreme Court referred to various
judgments of this Court
- 48 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
including Birdhichand Sharma case [AIR
1961 SC 644 : (1961) 3 SCR 161 :
(1961) 2 LLJ 86] but distinguished the
judgment in Shankar Balaji Waje
case [AIR 1962 SC 517 : 1962 Supp (1)
SCR 249] (rendered by two Hon'ble
Judges) by observing that the workman
who was claiming that status was not
called upon to attend duties in the factory
itself as he was permitted to take the
tobacco from the factory owner and role
the bidis at his residence at any time
without any fixed hour of work and that
there was absolutely no supervision of
the so-called employer over his work. In
conclusion, the Bench observed in Silver
Jubilee Tailoring House case [(1974) 3
SCC 498 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 31] , SCC p.
510, para 37:
“37. That the workers are not obliged
to work for the whole day in the shop is
not very material. There is of course no
reason why a person who is only
employed part-time, should not be a
servant and it is doubtful whether regular
part-time service can be considered even
prima facie to suggest anything other
than a contract of service. According to
the definition in Section 2(14) of the Act,
even if a person is not wholly employed,
if he is principally employed in connection
with the business of the shop, he will be a
‘person employed’ within the meaning of
the sub-section. Therefore, even if he
accepts some work from other tailoring
establishments or does not work whole
time in a particular establishment, that
would not in any way derogate from his
being employed in the shop where he is
principally employed.”
(emphasis supplied)
- 49 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
14. It will be seen from a perusal of the
aforequoted passages that the
observations made therein clearly
suggest that a workman employed on a
part-time basis but under the control and
supervision of an employer is a workman
in terms of Section 2(s) of the Act, and is
entitled to claim the protection of Section
25-F thereof, should the need so arise.
The fact that the workman was working
under the control and supervision of the
appellant employer is admitted on all
sides. We also find that the
preponderance of judicial opinion in the
High Courts is also to this effect. As a
sample we reproduce passages from two
such judgments.
18. The question as to whether a part-
time workman would be covered within
the definition in Section 2(s) of the Act
and whether he would be entitled to the
benefit of continuous service under
Section 25-B and the benefit of Section
25-F, is answered in favour of the
respondent workman. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed."
- 50 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
32. Even otherwise the workmen had moved an
application for production of the documents by the
management which were exclusively in their possession
including names of all the employees who were appointed on
contract basis for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010,
01.06.2008 to 31.03.2008 i.e. the security persons, the
attendance and payment register of all the employees from
01.04.2007 to 31.03.2010 etc. and the tribunal directed to
management by the order dated 17.08.2012 to produce
documents and despite the specific direction, the management
had failed to produce the documents. Therefore, we are of the
view that since initial burden was discharged by laying the
foundation that there were more than 100 workers employed
by the establishment in the preceding 12 months before the
date of lay-off, an adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of
the Evidence Act, 1872, should have been drawn. Though strict
rules of evidence are not applicable in the matters of industrial
dispute but the principles of Evidence Act are applicable.
33. In GOPAL KRISHNAJI KETKAR v. MOHAMED
HAJI LATIF AND OTHERS [1968 SCC OnLine SC 63] the
Supreme Court has explained the presumption under Section
- 51 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
114(g) of the Evidence Act in paragraph-5 which is extracted
hereunder:
5.
" ... Even if the burden of proof does not lie
on a party the Court may draw an adverse
inference if he withholds important documents
in his possession which can throw light on the
facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound
practice for those desiring to rely upon a
certain state of facts to withhold from the
Court the best evidence which is in their
possession which could throw light upon the
issues in controversy and to rely upon the
abstract doctrine of onus of proof.
In Murugesam Pillai v. Manickavasaka
Pandara [44 IA 98, at p 103] Lord Shaw
observed as follows:
“A practice has grown up in Indian procedure
of those in possession of important documents
or information lying by, trusting to the
abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and
failing, accordingly, to furnish to the Courts
the best material for its decision. With regard
to third parties, this may be right enough —
they have no responsibility for the conduct of
the suit; but with regard to the parties to the
suit it is, in Their Lordships' opinion, an
inversion of sound practice for those desiring
to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold
- 52 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
from the Court the written evidence in their
possession which would throw light upon the
proposition.”
This passage was cited with approval by this
Court in a recent decision— Biltu
Ram v. Jainandan Prasad [ Civil Appeal No.
941 of 1965 decided on April 15, 1968$$$] *
. In that case, reliance was placed on behalf of
the defendants upon the following passage
from the decision of the Judicial Committee
in Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh [42 IA
202, at p. 206] :
“But it is open to a litigant to refrain from
producing any documents that he considers
irrelevant; if the other litigant is dissatisfied it
is for him to apply for an affidavit of
documents and he can obtain inspection and
production of all that appears to him in such
affidavit to be relevant and proper. If he fails
so to do, neither he nor the Court at his
suggestion is entitled to draw any inference as
to the contents of any such documents.”
But Shah, J., speaking for the Court, stated:
“The observations of the Judicial Committee
do not support the proposition that unless a
party is called upon expressly to make an
affidavit of documents and inspection and
production of documents is demanded, the
- 53 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
Court cannot raise an adverse inference
against a party withholding evidence in his
possession. Such a rule is inconsistent with
Illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence
Act, and also an impressive body of authority.”
34. Similarly in TOMASO BRUNO AND ANOTHER v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [(2015) 7 SCC 178] the
Supreme Court in paragraphs 27 and 28 has held as under:
" 27. As per Section 114 Illustration (g) of the
Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best
evidence which will throw light in controversy
withholds it, the court can draw an adverse
inference against him notwithstanding that the
onus of proving does not lie on him. The
presumption under Section 114 Illustration (g) of
the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference
and not a necessary inference. Unlike
presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, where the court has no option
but to draw a statutory presumption, under
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the court has
the option; the court may or may not raise
presumption on the proof of certain facts.
Drawing of presumption under Section 114
Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act depends upon
the nature of fact required to be proved and its
- 54 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
importance in the controversy, the usual mode of
proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the
evidence which has not been produced and its
accessibility to the party concerned, all of which
have to be taken into account. It is only when all
these matters are duly considered that an
adverse inference can be drawn against the
party.
28. The High Court held that even though the
appellants alleged that the footage of CCTV is
being concealed by the prosecution for the
reasons best known to the prosecution, the
accused did not invoke Section 233 CrPC and
they did not make any application for production
of CCTV camera footage. The High Court further
observed that the accused were not able to
discredit the testimony of PW 1, PW 12 and PW
13 qua there being no relevant material in the
CCTV camera footage. Notwithstanding the fact
that the burden lies upon the accused to
establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts
and circumstances of the case, in our view, the
prosecution in possession of the best evidence,
CCTV footage ought to have produced the same.
In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an
adverse inference against the prosecution under
Section 114 Illustration (g) of the Evidence Act
that the prosecution withheld the same as it
- 55 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
would be unfavourable to them had it been
produced."
35. The specific names and details of the other
workmen working in the establishment during the relevant
period were given by the appellants-workmen besides 92
regular workmen. They moved an application for direction to
the respondent-establishment to produce the documents in
respect of those workers as these documents were in exclusive
possession of the management. However, the management
failed to produce those documents and therefore, the burden
was shifted on the management to disprove the assumption of
the workmen by producing the documents. As the management
failed to produce the documents/records, an adverse inference
should have been drawn against the respondent-establishment.
Consequently, the finding recorded by both, Tribunal as well as
the learned Single Judge are incorrect.
36. In light of the aforesaid discussion that there were
92 regular workers and there were 17 security guards
employed by the management and they were casual workers
who had worked there for 8 to 10 years before the date of lay-
off, we are of the considered view that the respondent-
- 56 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
establishment had employed more than 100 workmen in
preceding 12 months prior to the date of lay-off. Therefore, the
establishment would come within provisions under Chapter V-B
of the ID Act.
37. The establishment has not taken prior permission
from the competent authority as provided under Section 25M
before laying-off and retrenching the workmen and therefore,
as provided under Section 25N(7) of the ID Act, they are
entitled to relief. However, considering the financial position
and long period since the Factory/establishment was closed in
the year 2008 inasmuch as 18 long years have passed, we are
of the view that the interests of justice should meet if we direct
the respondent-management to pay a lump sum compensation
of Rs.3,00,000/- to each retrenched workmen. Accordingly, we
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ appeals are allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge and as well as the Tribunal are
set aside.
- 57 -
WA No. 1637 of 2024
C/W WA No. 1626 of 2024
WA No. 1985 of 2025
iii. We direct the respondent-management to pay a
sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to each retrenched workmen
within a period of eight(8) weeks from today.
iv. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
RKA