K SRIRANGACHARYA vs THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 105985 OF 2025 (L-ID)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 104480 OF 2025 (L-ID)

WRIT PETITION NO. 104481 OF 2025 (L-ID)

WRIT PETITION NO. 105988 OF 2025 (L-RES)

IN WP NO. 105985/2025
BETWEEN:


THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SAMYUKTA KARNATAKA,
(LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST) KOPPIKAR ROAD,
HUBBALLI.
REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MOHAN HEGDE, AGE. 55 YEARS,
R/O. LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST,
KOPPAIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.






…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SAROJA
HANGARAKI

K. SRIRANGACHARYA,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O. C/O. 37, BANDEHOSUR KANNUR POST
BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE DIST-560008.
Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAGHVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN
REF NO.5/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE
REF NO.5/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF
LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AT

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 104480/2025
BETWEEN:
K. SRIRANGACHARYA
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. RETD. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. C/O. NO.37, BANDEHOSUR, KANNUR POST,
BANGALORE EAST, BANGALORE 560077.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

AND:
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SAMYUKTHA KARNATAKA,
(LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST)
KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD 580023.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MODIFYING THE AWARD
AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBALI, DATED
27/01/2025, IN REF.NO.05/2022, AT ANNEXURE-D, IN SO FAR
AS 50% OF BACK WAGES FROM 01/08/2019 TO 31/07/2021
AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 104481/2025
BETWEEN:
RAVINDRANATH S/O. MALHARAO KULKARNI
AGE. 65 YEARS OCC. RETD. EMPLOYEE,
ND
R/O. C/O. S.L. JOSHI 2 CROSS, MALAMADDI,
NEAR RAYARMATH, MALAMADDI, DHARWAD 580001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

AND:
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SAMYUKTHA KARNATAKA,
(LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST) KOPPIKAR ROAD,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD 580023.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, MODIFYING THE AWARD
AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBALI, DATED
27/01/2025, IN REF.NO.04/2022, AT ANNEXURE-D, IN SO FAR
AS 50% OF BACK WAGES FROM 01/05/2019 TO 30/04/2021
AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 105988/2025
BETWEEN:

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SAMYUKTA KARNATAKA,
(LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST)
KOPPIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI.
REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MOHAN HEGDE, AGE. 55 YEARS,
R/O. LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST,
KOPPAIKAR ROAD, HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
RAVINDRANATH MALHARAO KULKARNI,
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
ND
R/O. C/O. S.L. JOSHI, 2 CROSS, MALAMADDI,
NEAR RAYARMATH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAGHVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 27.01.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LABOUR COURT
HUBBALLI IN REF NO.4/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED
TO DISMISS THE REF NO.4/2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
ON THE FILE OF LABOR COURT HUBBALLI THE COPY OF THE
SAME IS AT ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Writ Petitions in W.P.No.104480/2025 and
W.P.No.104481/2025 are filed by one Srirangacharya and
Ravindranath Kulakarani respectively seeking modification
of the award and order passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Hubballi dated 27.01.2025 in Reference
Nos.5/2022 and 4/2022 respectively insofar as denial of
50% of backwages and for a direction to the respondent-
Management to pay 50% backwages from 01.08.2019 to
31.07.2021 and 01.05.2019 to 30.04.2021 respectively
and all consequential benefits with interest at 19% per
annum.

2. Writ Petitions in W.P.No.105985/2025 and
W.P.No.105988/2025 are filed by the Chief Executive
Officer of Samyuktha Karnataka (Loka Shikshana Trust) -
Management (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Management’)
seeking quashing of orders dated 27.01.2025 passed by
the Labour Court, Hubballi in Reference Nos.5/2022 and
4/2022 respectively.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



3. Since these writ petitions give rise to common questions of
fact and law arising between common parties are taken up
for analogous hearing and disposal.

4. Brief facts of the matter are that:

4.1 Petitioner-Srirangacharya was employed as Production
Assistant by the respondent-Management on 19.05.1988
and attained superannuation on 31.07.2019. Similarly
Ravindranath Kulakarani was appointed as Group Leader
on 18.08.1989 and he attained superannuation on
30.04.2019.

4.2 As per the Certified Standing Order, the age of retirement
stipulated is 58 years. In view of the amendment to the
Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
(Amendment) Rules, 2017 the retirement age is fixed at
‘60’ instead of ‘58’ in terms of notification dated
27.03.2017.

4.3 Consequently, petitioner-Srirangacharya had filed an
application on 11.08.2018 to the respondent-Management
for refixation of age of retirement. Thereafter, he had
made similar representation on 11.06.2019 both to the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


Management and to the Deputy Labour Commissioner
seeking necessary action in the matter. However, Both
Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulakarani, the
petitioners retired from their respective services on
31.07.2019 and 30.04.2019 respectively, before
consideration of such representation.

4.4 It is alleged that the petitioners were forcibly thrusted with
the relieving orders even though they had resisted their
relieving by the Management as according to the
petitioners they were still left with 2 years of service in the
light of amendment brought to the Rules.

4.5 That after the retirement, petitioners pursued the matter
before the Certifying Officer in Case No.CR.5/2019. By
order dated 21.11.2019, the Certifying Officer directed the
respondent-Management to cause amendment to the
Certified Standing Order to bring it in conformity with the
Model Standing Order which stood amended by virtue of
the notification dated 27.03.2017 issued by the State
Government as noted above enhancing the age of
retirement from 58 to 60.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



4.6 A dispute thereafter was raised by the petitioners-
Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulakarani resulting in
matter being referred to the Industrial Tribunal under
Reference Nos.5/2022 and 4/2022 respectively.

4.7 Both Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulakarani
examined themselves in their respective case as W.W.1.

4.8 In Reference No.5/2022 16 documents were marked as
Exs.W.1 to W.16 and on behalf of Management R.W.1 was
examined and 47 documents were marked as Exs.M.1 to
M.47. In Reference No.4/2022, 6 documents were marked
as Exs.W.1 to W.6 and on behalf of Management M.W.1
was examined and 66 documents were marked as Exs.M.1
to M.66.

4.9 Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration:
“In Reference No.5/2022
1. Whether the Claimant proves that, the Respondent forcibly
issued relieve order from service on 31.07.2019?

2. Whether the Claimant is entitle for full back wages till
attaining age of 60 years as per the Majitiya Wage Board
report, age of retirement was increased 58 to 60 years
and all other consequential benefits?

3. Whether the Respondent proves that, the Claimant was
relieved from service as per Section 17 of Standing Order
their Establishment?

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


4. Whether the Claimant is entitle for reliefs as prayer for?

5. What order or award?”

“ In Reference No.4/2022
1. Whether the Claimant proves that, the Respondent forcibly
issued relieve order from service on 30.04.2019?

2. Whether the Claimant is entitle for full back wages till
attaining age of 60 years as per the Majitiya Wage Board
report, age of retirement was increased 58 to 60 years
and all other consequential benefits?

3. Whether the Respondent proves that, the Claimant was
relieved from service as per Section 17 of Standing Order
of their Establishment is justifiable?

4. Whether the Claimant is entitle for reliefs as prayer for?

5. What order or award?”


4.10 The Tribunal by separate orders partly allowed the
reference holding the termination order passed by the
respondent-Management in the case of Srirangacharya on
31.07.2019 and in the case of Ravindranath Kulakarani on
30.04.2019 as illegal and set aside the same. It further
directed respondent-Management to reinstate
Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulakarani to their
original posts with continued service till attaining age of
superannuation i.e. 60 years with further direction to pay
50% of the backwages from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


and 01.05.2019 to 30.04.2021 respectively with other
benefits such as provident fund and gratuity.

4.11 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, petitioners-
Srirangacharya and Ravindranath Kulakarani are aggrieved
to the extent of they not having been provided with the
50% of backwages, while the Management is aggrieved by
the order directing reinstatement of the petitioners.

5. Sri Shivakumar S Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing
for the Management submits that:

5.1 The impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are
unsustainable inasmuch as the Tribunal has misconceived
the enforceability of Certified Standing Orders. In that,
even before amendment was effected to the Certified
Standing Order incorporating change of retirement age,
the petitioners had retired from their services. Therefore,
extending the benefit of amended Certified Standing Order
to the petitioners, who had already retired from their
services, was unjustified.

5.2 That notwithstanding the amendment to the Rules brought
in by the State effective from 27.03.2017, unless and until

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


corresponding amendment was carried out and given
effect to as provided under law to the Certified Standing
Order of the Management, petitioners cannot claim any
benefit which aspect of the matter has been lost sight of
by the Tribunal.

5.3 Mere filing of applications by the petitioners even while
they were in service would not give them any statutory
right of extension of retirement age unless the Certified
Standing Order was correspondingly amended.

5.4 He relies upon the judgments of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Management of M/s. Grasim
Industries Limited v. General Secretary, Harihar
Polyfibers and Others passed in Writ Appeal
No.100250/2021 disposed of on 05.07.2022 and in
the case of Karnataka Employers Association and
Others v. State of Karnataka and Others in Writ
Appeal Nos.2304-2309/2018 and connected matters
disposed of on 01.10.2020.

5.5 That the distinction sought to be made by the Tribunal to
the aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench is fallacious

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


inasmuch as the Tribunal has taken the filing of application
for amendment to be the effective date, which is neither
the acceptable nor legal. Hence, seeks for allowing of the
petitions filed by the Management and dismissal of the
petitions filed by the petitioners.

6. Per contra , Sri Raghavendra A Purohit learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submits that:

6.1 The Management cannot shy away from their statutory
responsibility of giving effect to the amendment brought to
the Model bye-laws. It was their responsibility to have
ensured that any amendment brought to the Model
Standing Orders by the State was correspondingly given
effect to the Certified Standing Order.

6.2 Since the Management declined and failed to discharge its
statutory obligation, the petitioners being the employees
were constrained to file applications even while they were
in service bringing to the notice of the Management as well
as the Certifying Officer with regard to amendment
enhancing the date of retirement not being given effect in
the Certified Standing Orders.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



6.3 Therefore, the effective date of amendment shall be taken
as on the date when the notification was issued by the
State Government or in the alternate on the date when the
applications were made by the petitioners to the Certifying
Officer.

6.4 He relies upon paragraph No.I(i) at page No.46 of the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.100250/2021 dated 05.07.2022 in the case of
The Management of M/s Grasim Industries Limited
vs. The General Secretary and Others to contend that
the conduct of Management in not giving effect to the
statutory amendment brought to the Model Standing Order
shall be taken into consideration as done by the Division
Bench in the said judgment, wherein despite the
amendment being carried on subsequent date, the Division
Bench has given effect to the same retrospectively.

6.5 That in the instant case, since the petitioners on their own
had made applications seeking amendment to the Certified
Standing Order, the date of filing of the said applications

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


shall be taken into consideration which was well within the
time before the retirement of the petitioners.

6.6 He further submits that the Tribunal even while accepting
the case of the petitioners of they being entitled to be
retained by the Management till they attain the enhanced
age of superannuation, it has erred in not granting them
benefit of full backwages, instead has granted only 50% of
the backwages, which is erroneous.

6.7 Hence, seeks for allowing of the petitions filed by the
petitioners and to dismiss the petitions filed by the
Management.

7. Heard. Perused the records.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in these
petitions is as under:
“Whether the enhanced age of retirement in the
instant case is to be given effect to on and after
21.12.2019 i.e. the date when the amendment to
the Certified Standing Orders was effected or on
07.08.2019 when the application as per Ex.M.2 was
submitted by the petitioners?”


9. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) 1946 is an Act,
which requires employers in the industrial establishments
formally to define conditions of employment under them

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


and to make the said conditions known to the workmen
employed by them.

10. Section 3 of the said Act requires the employer to prepare
Standing Orders proposed by him for adoption in the
industrial establishment within 6 months from the date on
which the Act becomes applicable. The Standing Order
prepared as required under sub-section (1) shall refer to
every matter set out in the Schedule which may be
applicable to the industrial establishment and where the
Model Standing Order have been prescribed shall be so far
as is practicable in conformity with such Model Standing
Order.

11. It further provides that there shall be discussion with the
trade union existing in the industrial establishment or the
representatives of the workmen before adoption and
employer providing proof thereof.

12. Section 4 of the Act stipulates conditions for certification of
the Standing Order.

13. Section 5 of the Act provides for certification of the
Standing Order. In that, the Certifying Officer upon receipt

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


of the draft under sub-section (5) of Section 3 shall
forward a copy thereof to the trade union, if any, of the
workmen or where there is no such trade union to the
workmen in such manner as may be prescribed and after
giving the employer in the trade union or such other
representatives of the workmen as may be prescribed,
provide an opportunity of being heard and shall decide
whether or not any modification or addition to the draft is
necessary and shall make order in writing accordingly.

14. Section 6 of the Act provides for an appeal by any
employer, workmen, trade union or prescribed
representatives aggrieved by the order of the Certifying
Officer passed under Section 5 of the Act.

15. Section 7 of the Act provides for the date of operation of
the Standing Orders, which makes it clear that the
Standing Order as adopted under sub-section (4) of
Section 3 shall come into operation on the expiry of 30
days from the date on which the employer and the trade
union or the workmen representatives agree to adopt the
Standing Order.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



16. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act further provides
that unless an appeal is preferred, Section 6 comes into
operation on expiry of 30 days from the date on which
authenticated copies thereof are sent under sub-section
(3) of Section 5 or where an appeal as aforesaid is
preferred, on expiry of 7 days from the date on which
copies of the order of the appellate authority are sent
under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act.

17. Section 10 of the Act provides for duration and
modification of the Standing Orders. In that, Standing
Order finally certified or adopted under the Act shall not
except on agreement between employer and workmen or a
trade union or other representatives body of workmen, be
liable to modification until expiry of 6 months from the
date on which the Standing Orders or the last modification
thereof came into operation.

18. Thus, the aforesaid provisions broadly provide for the
manner and method in which Standing Orders are required
to be adopted, amended, modified and the dates on which
they become operative and effective.

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



19. It is in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, the
facts involved and the point raised above needs to be
addressed.

20. By notification dated 27.03.2017, State of Karnataka in
exercise of power conferred under sub-section (1) of
Section 15 of the Act brought in amendment to the Rules,
which read as under:
“LABOUR SECRETARIAT
NOTIFICATION
No:LD 72 LET 2013, Bengaluru, Dated: 27-03-2017

Whereas the draft of the Karnataka Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) (Amendment) Rules, 2009
was published as required by sub-section (1) of section 15
of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946
(Central Act XX of 1946); in Notification No:LD 282 LET
2009, dated: 07.12.2009 in Part IV-A of the Karnataka
Gazette Extraordinary dated: 07.12.2009, inviting
objections and suggestions from all the persons likely to
be affected thereby within thirty days from the date of its
publication in the Official Gazette.

And whereas the said Gazette was made available to the
public on 07.12.2009.

And whereas the objections and suggestions received in
this regard have been considered by the State
Government.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (Central Act XX of 1946), the
Government of Karnataka hereby makes the following
rules, namely:-
RULES
1. Title and commencement: (i) These rules may be
called the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) (Amendment) Rules, 2017.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



(ii) They shall come into force from the date of their
publication in the Official Gazette.

2. Amendment of Schedule-I:- In the Karnataka
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Rules, 1961, in
Schedule-I:

(i) under the heading "Model Standing Orders prescribed
under Rule 3(1): A- For workmen excluding clerks and
other ministerial staff", in the entries at Sl.No. 15-A, for
the words and figures "58 years" the words and figures
"60 years" shall be substituted.

(ii) under the heading "Model Standing Orders prescribed
under Rule 3(1): B-For Clerks and other Ministerial Staff”,
in the entries at Sl.No. 22-A, for the words and figures "58
years" the words and figures "60 years" shall be
substituted.


By order and in the name of
the Governor of Karnataka


L. S. Srikanta Babu
Deputy Secretary to Government,
Department of Labour.”


21. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid notification sub-rule (1) of
Rule 3 was amended by substituting the figures ‘58 years’
to ‘60 years’ at Sl.No.22-A of the Model Standing Orders.
The said amendment was given effect to on and after
27.03.2017.

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



22. The Amended Model Standing Order particularly
Sl.No.24(a) read as under:
“24 AGE OF RETIREMENT FROM EMPLOYMENT;
a) Every workmen who has completed 60 years of age or
has completed 25 years of service and seeks voluntary
retirement or has attained 50 years of age, may retire at
anytime thereafter without loss of provident fund or such
of the benefits which may accrue from time to time.

However in case of physical debility or weakness a
workmen may retire at any time by furnishing a
satisfactory medicial certificate in proof of the same, and
such workmen shall be entitled to all the benefits
mentioned herein above.”


23. It is well settled that the industrial units which have their
own Certified Standing Orders will have to bring their
Certified Standing Orders in conformity with the Model
Standing Orders apart from having their own fair and just
terms and conditions of employment.

24. In the instant case, though the amendment was brought to
the Rules, the same required to be adopted by the
industrial unit as that of the respondent-Management by
the process contemplated under Section 10 of the Act as
noted above.

25. Though it is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that it was the obligation on the part of the

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


Management to have ensured such amendment was
brought in, Section 10 of the Act does not make any such
distinction making it an exclusive obligation on the part of
the management.

26. Section 10 of the Act as noted above provides opportunity
to all the stakeholders namely the management, trade
union, representative of trade union or the workmen. Any
of these stakeholders can approach the Certifying Officer
under the Act seeking amendment not only to the Standing
Order on their own, but in view of any amendment brought
by the State to the Statute or the Rules. Therefore, merely
because there is an amendment brought by the State to
the Rules that by itself would not ipso facto amount to
amendment to the Standing Order of the respondent-
Management unless the same has gone through the
process contemplated under Section 10 of the Act.

27. This is the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court
in the aforesaid Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.2304-2309/2018
and connected matters as well as in Writ Appeal
No.100250/2021.

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



28. At paragraph No.7 of the judgment in Writ Appeal
No.2304-2309/2018 and other connected matters, the
Division Bench of this Court has in the facts of the said
case held as under:
“7. Insofar as the aforesaid appellants are concerned,
since they are before this Court challenging the
incorporation of the enhanced age of superannuation to
the Certified Standing Orders, they are at liberty to
pursue the said challenge before this Court. However, if
they are unsuccessful, then the direction issued by the
learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and the
interim orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court in these appeals would not come in the way of
the employees having the benefit of the amendment to
the Certified Standing Orders incorporating the age of
superannuation as 60 years. However, from the date of
impugned Notification i.e., 27.03.2017 till today if any
Certified Standing Orders of any of the appellant
companies have been modified incorporating the age of
superannuation to 60 years, then from the date of the
Certified Standing Orders, the employees of such
appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of the same
subject to any challenge to be made by the appellants
and the interim order passed in these appeals would
not be applicable subject to any challenge to be made
by the appellants.”


29. Similar is the view taken by the other Division Bench of
this Court in WA No.100250/2021.

30. Learned counsel for the petitioners however sought to rely
upon paragraph No.I(i) at page No.46 of Writ Appeal
No.100250/2021, which reads as under:

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


“I. CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT AND DISENTITLEMENT
TO RELIEF:
(i) The Appellant – Industry whilst prosecuting its appeal
rd
before the 3 Resp. – Additional Labour Commissioner
had specifically stated that it had prima facie an outlook
of positive approach to the demand for the
enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60
years and that in this connection, it would hold
positivist talks with the Employees Union and resolve
the problem. The same has been recorded at internal
page 9 the impugned order dated 08.08.2018. On being
questioned as to whether such a statement was made
before the authority, learned Senior Advocate, Mr.
Kathawi in all fairness replied that the said observation
has not been controverted, as being not true. If that be
so, the appellant ought to have addressed the said
issue with the participation of the Employee Union and
settled the dispute, by now.”


31. As noted in the contents of the said paragraph, it was
under the peculiar facts of that case the Division Bench
directed the Certified Standing Orders to be given effect to
with effect from 17.03.2018, namely, the Management had
apparently expressed its willingness to increase the age of
retirement after discussion with the union even prior to the
date of making an application for amendment, which is not
the case at hand.

32. Even according to the petitioners, it is only at their
instance and upon they filing applications before the
Certifying Officer, amendment to the Standing Orders were
given effect to by a separate order passed by the

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025


Certifying Officer on and from 21.12.2019. Thus, the
reliance placed on by counsel for the petitioners to the
aforesaid paragraph of the judgment of Writ Appeal
No.100250/2021 cannot be of any avail.

33. The Tribunal in the impugned orders at paragraph No.30 in
the case of Ravindranath Kulakarani and in paragraph
No.34 in the case of Srirangacharya, though has tried to
distinguish the law and facts with reference to submission
of requisition by the petitioner-employees to the
respondent-Management praying for enhancement of
retirement age from ‘58’ to ‘60’ years in terms of
notification dated 27.03.2017, it has not adverted to the
requirement of law being the amendment to be carried out
for and to be given effect to. The said distinction drawn by
the Tribunal in the considered view of this Court does not
meet the requirement of law.

34. In that view of the matter, Writ Petitions in
W.P.No.105985/2025 and W.P.No.105988/2025 filed by
the Management are allowed .

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16644
WP No. 105985 of 2025
C/W WP No. 104480 of 2025
WP No. 104481 of 2025
WP No. 105988 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020177102025



35. Orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Hubballi dated 27.01.2025 in Reference Nos.5/2022 and
4/2022 respectively are quashed.

36. Consequently, Writ Petitions in W.P.No.104480/2025 and
W.P.No.104481/2025 filed by the petitioners are
dismissed .

Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38