SHRI M RAMA RAO vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT/LABOUR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 107860 OF 2026 (L-ID)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI M RAMA RAO
AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. SHANTAGIRI, SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA COLONY,
VIDYANAGARA, HUBBALLI 580 031.
(SINCE, THE PETITIONER NO.1 IS THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 8 BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL/RESPONDENT NO.1 HE HAS APPROACHED THIS
HON'BLE COURT AND SENIOR CITIZENSHIP BENEFIT IS
NOT CLAIMED)
2. MANJUNATH SHIVAPUTRAPPA BANKAPUR,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. 7/1, NAVA AYODHYA NAGARA, OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580 024.
3. ALLABAKSHA R. BALLARY
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. OPP. KAMAT HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI - 580 023.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
4. GOPALA R. BHADRI
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O.. NEAR HEAD POST, ANNIGERRI VILLAGE,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD - 582 201.
5. SADANANDAGOUDA S. NAGARAHALLI,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
51, JANATA QUARTERS, MULLA ONI,
GANDHINAGARA, KESHWAPURA, HUBBALLI 580 023.
6. SMT. CHAMPAKALI W/O BAHASAB NADAF,
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
ND
2 CROSS, SHIVAJI NAGARA, HAVERI 581 110.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
7. KUMARA G. DODDAMANI,
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
AMBEDKAR COLONY, AYODHYA NAGARA,
OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD - 580 024.
8. SMT. NAGARATNA S. YARAGUNTI,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. BANKAPUR CHOWK, INDIRANAGAR,
P.B. ROAD, TQ. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD - 580 028.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. UROOJAHMED J. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT/LABOUR
COURT BENGALURU SHRAM SADAN,
G. G. PALYA, TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE 560 022.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE/OFFICE-I,
T.S. COMPLEX, SOLAPUR ROAD,
KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI-580 023.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (B AND O)
/REGIONAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, A.O. 6, BSL AVENUE,
AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, PJ EXTENSION,
DAVANGERE 577002.
4. THE DIRECTOR N.S.S.O (F.O.D)
II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI 580 029.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24/06/2026 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
BENGALURU, IN ID NO.19/2017, ID NO.04/2018, ID NO.05/2018, ID
NO.07/2018, ID NO.08/2018, ID NO.09/2018, CR NO.05/2018
REJECTING THE RECUSAL APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS
NO. 2 TO 8 ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS WP COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS
MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners in this writ petition are the I
Party/workmen in the industrial disputes in I.D.
No.19/2017, I.D. No.4/2018, I.D. No.5/2018, I.D.
No.7/2018, I.D. No.8/2018, I.D. No.9/2018 and C.R.
No.5/2018, pending on the file of the Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners had filed applications under Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking recusal of the
Presiding Officer from their respective case and to stay of
further proceedings in the main matters. The said
applications have been rejected by the impugned order.
Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present
writ petition.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are
more than 60 industrial disputes of this nature and in all
those matters applications of similar nature have been
filed and that all such applications have been rejected.
However, since the records pertaining to the other
proceedings are not available, the present writ petition
has been filed only by eight petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that
the petitioners were constrained to file the said
applications inasmuch as the Presiding Officer was not
providing them proper and adequate opportunities to
present their cases. It is submitted that the Presiding
Officer was neither recording the presence of the parties
nor indicating the status of the cases and was issuing
notices contrary to the status of the proceedings, thereby
giving rise to a grave apprehension in the minds of the
petitioners that they were not being dealt with justly and
in accordance with law. Hence, they were constrained to
file applications seeking recusal of the Presiding Officer.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners furnishes a memo
along with a copy of a notice issued to one
Smt.Champakali W/o Bahasab Nadaf, who is a first party
in I.D. No.8/2018 and petitioner No.6 in the present writ
petition. The said notice reads as under:
“ NOTICE
ID No. 08/2018
I PARTY II PARTY
Smt. Champakali B. Nadaf,
Wlo Bashasab,
nd
2 Cross,
Shivaji Nagara,
Haveri-581110.
Deputy General Manager(B&O)/
Regional Manager
A.O. 6, BSL Avenue,
Akkamahadevi Road, PJ
Extension, Davanagare-577002
You are hereby informed that, the above case has been
posted to appearance of WW1 for Cross Examination
without fail, failing which the evidence led by her in
chief would be struck off from the record.
I am, therefore, directed to request you to remain
present on 18.11.2026 at 10:30 hrs at the above mentioned
address. failing which the proceedings will be continued as Ex-
parte.”
6. Referring to the contents of the said notice and
juxtaposing the same with the order sheet produced at
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
Annexure-C1, learned counsel for the petitioners insists
that, when the party had already been cross-examined,
the Presiding Officer could not have issued a notice
threatening to strike off her evidence in the event of her
absence. Thus, he submits that this is one of several such
instances where the Presiding Officer has exhibited
judicial conduct to the detriment of the interests of the
petitioners, thereby constraining them to file the
applications.
7. He submits that the rejection of the said application for
recusal is contrary to the principles of natural justice,
inasmuch as the petitioners have not only demonstrated
that their apprehensions were well-founded but have also
brought on record that they have been unduly fastened
with the burden of proving their case without calling upon
the Management to produce the documents necessary for
the effective disposal of the matters. He further submits
that the Tribunal has adopted a discriminatory approach
by being extremely and unreasonably strict with the
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
petitioners while being generous towards the respondent-
Management.
8. The Tribunal has not expressed the apprehension
expressed by the petitioners in judicious consideration
and disposal of the case while rejecting the applications.
Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition.
9. Heard and perused the records.
10. The applications filed by the petitioners are
produced at Annexures-H and H1. The contents of the
said applications, as found at page No.239 of the paper
book, are extracted below:
“ BEFORE THE HON CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU
ID 7/2018
Sadanandagouda FIRST PARTY
VS
SBI Second Party
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING RECUSAL OF THE
PRESIDING OFFICER AND STAY OF FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD ΤΟ ΜΑΙΝ MATTER
The First Party most respectfully submits as follows
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
1. It is submitted that, this Application is filed invoking
the fundamental principles of natural justice,
particularly the doctrine of bias (nemo judex in causa
sua), the right to fair adjudication under Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the inherent
powers of this Hon'ble Tribunal analogous to Section
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to prevent
miscarriage of justice.
2. It is submitted that, the conduct of the present
Presiding Officer, viewed cumulatively and objectively,
has given rise to a reasonable, real, and not merely
illusory apprehension of bias, thereby striking at the
very root of fair adjudication.
3. It is further submitted that, the proceedings before
this Hon'ble Tribunal have, in effect, ceased to be
adjudicatory and have assume a character that is
procedurally oppressive and substantive prejudicial to
the workmen, including the present Applicant.
4. It is submitted that there exists a consistent and
demonstrable pattern of conduct, inter alia:
(a) Systematic denial of effective hearing to workmen
and their authorised representatives, while liberally
entertaining submissions of management;
(b) Non-recording of submissions, pleadings,
documents and written arguments of workmen,
thereby vitiating the record;
(c) Grant of repeated and prolonged adjournments to
management, contrasted with coercive conduct
against workmen, including threats of ex parte
proceedings;
(d) Compelling workmen to participate in Bengaluru
sittings, despite the long-standing practice of sittings
at Hubballi/Mangaluru, thereby imposing
disproportionate financial and logistical hardship;
(e) Entertaining advocates for management in
violation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
Act, 1947, despite express refusal of consent by
workmen;
(f) Imposition of extraneous procedural requirements
on workmen, including insistence on documents
exclusively in the possession of employers;
(g) Framing of issues and conduct of proceedings in a
manner shifting the burden contrary to settled labour
law principles, causing manifest prejudice;
(h) Failure to supply certified copies, refusal to accept
filings, and non-maintenance of proper records,
thereby obstructing access to justice.”
i) Passing orders against law, customised practice
rejecting prayers to favour Second Party
5. It is further pertinent to note that, the abrupt
discontinuation of sittings at Hubballi/Mangaluru,
historically conducted to ensure access to justice for
economically disadvantaged workmen, has resulted in
effective exclusion of workmen from meaningful
participation, rendering the process oppressive and
inequitable.
6. It is submitted that, the insistence on physical
presence in Bengaluru, coupled with scattered hearing
dates across the month, has the effect of denying
representation to workmen who lack financial means,
thereby defeating the very object of industrial
adjudication.
7. It is submitted that, the cumulative effect of
selective hearing, unequal procedural treatment,
disregard of statutory safeguards under the Industrial
Disputes Act, and consistent rulings adverse to
workmen without proper consideration of their
submissions creates a legitimate perception that the
Presiding Officer is not acting as an impartial
adjudicatory authority.
8. It is settled law that even a reasonable likelihood of
bias is sufficient, and proof of actual bias is not
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
required. The test is whether a reasonable person
would apprehend that justice may not be done.
9. It is submitted that, due to the above, the Applicant
and similarly placed workmen have completely lost
faith in the fairness, neutrality, and objectivity of the
present Presiding Officer.
10. It is submitted that, the continuation of
proceedings under such circumstances would amount
to compelling the Applicant to submit to a forum in
which the outcome appears pre-judged, thereby
violating fundamental principles of justice.
11. It is a cardinal principle that justice must not only
be done but must manifestly appear to be done. The
present circumstances fail this test.
12. Hence viewed from an angle, any further
proceedings before the miscarriage of justice, and
erosion of public confidence in the same Presiding
Officer would result in irreparable prejudice,
Institution.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the above facts and circumstances,
it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Tribunal may be pleased to:
a) Recuse the present Presiding Officer from
hearing the present matter forthwith;
b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit to secure the ends of justice and
uphold the integrity of the adjudicatory process.
INTERIM PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the above, pending
disposal of the above Application, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be
pleased to Stay all further proceedings in regard to
merits of the matter in the above case.”
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
“ BEFORE THE HON CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU
ID 09/201
Kumara Doddamani FIRST PARTY
Vs
SBI Second Party
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 SEEKING
RECUSAL OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER AND STAY
OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD ΤΟ ΜΑΙΝ
MATTER
The First Party most respectfully submits as
follows
1. It is submitted that, this Application is filed
invoking the fundamental principles of natural
justice, particularly the doctrine of bias (nemo
judex in causa sua), the right to fair adjudication
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India, and the inherent powers of this Hon'ble
Tribunal analogous to Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, to prevent miscarriage of
justice.
2. It is submitted that, the conduct of the present
Presiding Officer, viewed cumulatively and
objectively, has given rise to a reasonable, real,
and not merely illusory apprehension of bias,
thereby striking at the very root of fair
adjudication.
3. It is further submitted that, the proceedings
before this Hon'ble Tribunal have, in effect,
ceased to be adjudicatory and have assumed a
character that is procedurally oppressive and
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
substantively prejudicial to the workmen,
including the present Applicant.
4. It is submitted that, that there exists a
consistent and demonstrable pattern of conduct,
inter alia:
a) Systematic denial of effective hearing to
workmen and their authorized
representatives, submissions of
management;
b) Non-recording of submissions, pleadings,
documents, and written arguments-of-
workmen, thereby vitiating the record:
c) Grant of repeated and prolonged
adjournments to management, contrasted
with coercive conduct against workmen
including threats of ex parte proceedings;
d) Compelling workmen to participate in
Bengaluru sittings, despite practice long-
standing of sittings at Hubballi/Mangaluru,
thereby imposing disproportionate financial
and logistical hardship;
e) Entertaining advocates for management in
violation of Section 36(4) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, despite express refusal of
consent by workmen;
f) Imposition of extraneous procedural
requirements on workmen, including
Insistence on documents exclusively in
possession of employers;
g) Framing of issues and conduct of
proceedings in a manner shifting burden
contrary to settled labour law principles
causing manifest prejudice;
h) Failure to supply certified copies, refusal to
accept filings, and non-maintenance of
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
proper records, thereby obstructing access to
justice.
i) Passing orders against law, customised
practice rejecting prayers to favour Second
Party
5. It is further pertinent to note that, the abrupt
discontinuation of sittings at Hubballi/Mangaluru,
historically conducted to ensure access to justice
for economically disadvantaged workmen, has
resulted in effective exclusion of workmen from
meaningful participation, rendering the process
oppressive and inequitable.
6. It is submitted that, the insistence on physical
presence in Bengaluru, coupled with scattered
hearing dates across the month, has the effect of
denying representation to workmen who lack
financial means, thereby defeating the very
object of industrial adjudication.
7. It is submitted that, the cumulative effect of
selective hearing, unequal procedural treatment,
disregard of statutory safeguards under the
Industrial Disputes Act, and consistent rulings
adverse to workmen without proper consideration
of their submissions creates a legitimate
perception that the Presiding Officer is not acting
as an impartial adjudicatory authority.
8. It is settled law that even a reasonable
likelihood of bias is sufficient, and proof of actual
bias is not required. The test is whether a
reasonable person would apprehend that justice
may not be done.
9. It is submitted that, due to the above, the
Applicant and similarly placed workmen have
completely lost faith in the fairness, neutrality,
and objectivity of the present Presiding Officer.
10. It is submitted that, the continuation of
proceedings under such circumstances would
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
amount to compelling the Applicant to submit to
a forum in which the outcome appears pre-
judged, thereby violating fundamental principles
of justice.
11. It is a cardinal principle that justice must not
only be done but must manifestly appear to be
done. The present circumstances fail this test.
12. Hence viewed from an angle, any further
proceedings before the same Presiding Officer
would result in irreparable prejudice, miscarriage
of justice, and erosion of public confidence In the
institution.
PRAYER
Wherefore, in the above facts and
circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:
a) Recuse the present Presiding Officer from
hearing the present matter forthwith;
b) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Tribunal deems fit to secure the ends of justice
and uphold the integrity of the adjudicatory
process.
INTERIM PRAYER
Wherefore, in light of the above, pending
disposal of the above Application, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal
may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in
regard to merits of the matter in the above
case.”
11. Upon enquiry by this Court, learned counsel for the
petitioners confirms that identical applications, as
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
extracted hereinabove, have been filed in all the said 60
matters.
12. A perusal of the applications, particularly paragraphs 4 (a
to h), indicates that general and omnibus averments and
allegations have been made to make out a case of
purported denial of access to justice and disposal of the
proceedings in accordance with law. No specific instance is
pointed out with reference to any particular case. As
already noted above, counsel for the petitioners has
referred to a notice issued to one Smt.Champakali B
Nadaf, who is I Party in I.D.No.20/2018 to justify and
support the averments made in the above application.
13. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has assigned the
following reasons, some of which are relevant for the
purpose of consideration of the present case:
“2. When the above applications were massively
filed in a good number of cases, notices were
issued from this Tribunal calling upon the
parties to make their personal appearance on
18.06.2026 and to speak on their actual
grievances if any. All of them except one or two
stood served with notice. However, no one
appeared before this Tribunal in person to
speak out. Instead, so many letters of
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
confirmation of recusal application stating that
they have submitted the said application fully
understanding its content and subscribed his /
her signature voluntarily without any pressure
on him/ her from anyone are received by post
before this Tribunal.
3. Strange to see, confirmation letters came to
this Tribunal even from those who did not file
recusal application and to whom notices have
not been issued from this Tribunal.
4. Likewise similar application seeking the
Presiding Officer to recuse from the case is
received in ID 69/2019, a matter reserved for
award after full-fledged trial and argument from
both sides in a well sophisticated manner by
strictly following all the procedures known to
law.
5. All such applications / confirmations were
received by this Tribunal by post except in one
case viz. ID no. 07/2018 which was sent to the
official email of this Tribunal.
6. In EPF no. 111/2025 also a similar
application is received by this Tribunal by post
from one Mr. Shivananda Penagonda, who
though stood served with notice in an
impleading application did not prefer to mark
his appearance on the hearing date. The same
is an appeal filed u/s 7-1 of the EPF & MP Act
1952 by the employer establishment in which
the above mentioned employee was sought to
be implended as he had been made a party in
the writ petition filed by the establishment
before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
What is the scope of a recusal application
raising such wild allegations at the hand of a
proposed party in a matter between the
employer and the EPF department has to be
substantiated by the applicant himself. He also
did not submit any affidavit or solemn
declaration in respect of the allegations raised.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
7. Xerox copies of the applications were taken
by this Tribunal on its own and served on the
learned counsel appearing for the opposite
party in the respective cases. The respective
counsel stoutly opposed the applications orally
and also by submitting written objections.
xxx……xxx ….. xxx…..……xxx ….. xxx…..xxx
14. Strange to see, none of the applicants have
got any individual grievance with reference to
the regular proceedings occurred in their case.
The whole allegations and accusations are
raised enmasse without reference to a single
individual case. That itself indicates that the
unfounded. allegations and accusations raised in
the above applications are only. speculative and
hypothetical in nature and not related to any
single case in which the applications emerged.
From this naked fact it further stands reflected
that though the names of the employees in the
individual cases are shown in the respective
application, the contents therein are not their
creations, but by someone else who is none
other than their Authorized representative who
is commonly appearing in all the above cases by
hiding his face and borrowing the names of the
litigant community. Since months ago he
stopped appearing in this Court / Tribunal, nor
does he cause the respective parties to appear
in person. Despite the repeated absence of the I
Party employees in the afore-noted cases, this
Court / Tribunal has been repeatedly issuing
notices to them and none of them prefer to
appear on the hcaring dates. At the risk of
repetition I say, even when an opportunity was
given to the employees who submitted
application for recusal to mark their physical
appearance before this Court / Tribunal on
18.06.2026 for detailed enquiry, then also they
did prefer to keep aloof. Instead they were
caused to submit a confirmation of the
allegations already made. Apparently and
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
explicitly none of the litigant party was ready to
face an enquiry in respect of the allegations
raised in the respective applications whereby
those allegations stood proved as absolutely
groundless. From all these it is clear that the
authorised representative of the employee
community in the afore-quoted cases could
capture their brain and soul and they are
absolutely in dark as to what is happening in
their respective cases in their absence. Since
this Court / Tribunal owes a legal and moral
obligation to protect the interest of the litigating
parties in a lis, all the above cases are kept live.
without doing any harm to the parties,
regardless of their continuous absence despite
repented individual alerts. In fact it is high time
to think as to who is at harm to the workmen
community, whether this Tribunal or their
Authorised Representative who conceals himself
behind the screen and showering repulsive and
disgusting remarks against this judicial system.”
14. In addition to the above, the Tribunal has also
taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association
v. Union of India , reported in (2016) 5 SCC 1 , relevant
extracts of which are reproduced below:
“A Judge may recuse at his own, from a case entrusted
to him by the Chief Justice. That would be a matter of
his own choosing. But recusal at the asking of a litigating
party, unless justified, must never to be acceded to. For
that would give the impression, of the Judge had been
scared out of the case, just by the force of the objection.
A Judge before he assumes his office, takes an oath to
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
discharge his duties without fear or favour. He would
breach his oath of office, if he accepts a prayer for
recusal, unless justified. It is my duty to discharge my
responsibility with absolute earnestness and sincerity. It
is my duty to abide by my oath of office, to uphold the
Constitution and the laws. My decision to continue to be
a part of the Bench, flows from the oath which I took, at
the time of my elevation to this Court.”
15. It is also taken note of the judgment of High Court
of Calcutta in the case of Soumendra Kumar Biswas
vs. State of West Bengal and another (CRR
No.2116/2022) dated 06.05.2024.
16. The Tribunal thereafter at paragraphs 22 to 31 of
the impugned order dealing with the contents of the
application, at para 32 has observed as under:
“At the risk of the repetition I say, when called for a
detailed enquiry in respect of elements of bias
alleged, none of them preferred to come forward and
make their say loud and clear. This is more
illustrative of the falsehood behind the allegations
and imputations raised against the Presiding Officer.”
17. The Tribunal has thereafter, in paragraphs 33 and
34, also pointed out the practice adopted by the
Authorized Representative of forwarding pleadings and
written notes of the cases to the Tribunal through the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
postal department, contrary to the prescribed procedures
and rules of practice.
18. On perusal of the detailed order impugned in this
petition, this Court is not persuaded to accept the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners or to
show any indulgence in the matter.
19. The applications filed by the petitioners contain
omnibus allegations without specific reference to the
individual cases. Such allegations cannot be
countenanced as sufficient justification for seeking
recusal of the Presiding Officer. If such a trend is
permitted, no judicial or quasi-judicial officer would be
able to function. It would amount to subverting the
system by filing applications of this nature.
20. It is needless to state that if any party to the
proceedings suffers any procedural or substantive
illegality/irregularity at the hands of the judicial or quasi-
judicial authority dealing with the matter, it is open to
such party to raise the specific issue and seek appropriate
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16953
WP No. 107860 of 2026
CNR: KAHC020171182026
redressal in accordance with law. Instead, filing
applications of this nature, seeking recusal of the
Presiding Officer in as many as 60 matters on omnibus
allegations, is a circumstance that cannot be
countenanced.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .
22. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, the Tribunal
shall ensure that each of the Industrial Disputes that are
pending consideration before it are dealt with strictly in
accordance with law by providing sufficient opportunities
to the I party/workmen to present their case effectively
at the place of convenience i.e. at Hubballi and Mangalore
quelling any apprehension of bias or deprivation of access
to justice, as sought to be made out in the applicaton.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
VB/CT:VP/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25