Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S. Adithya ... vs D K Narayanaswamy S/O Krishnappa on 2 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651
WP No. 9724 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 9724 OF 2012 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S. ADITHYA HOROLOGICALS LTD.,
PLOT NO 20-A, DODDABALLAPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,
DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAVINDRANATH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. D K NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O KRISHNAPPA ,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT ALUR DUDDANAHALLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
Digitally BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
signed by
PRAMILA G V 2. T D VENKATACHALAIAH,
Location: S/O DODDANARAYANAPPA,
HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OF R/AT TUBUGERE VILLAGE,
KARNATAKA DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3. H A SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O ADAVEESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT KODIMALA,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651
WP No. 9724 of 2012
HC-KAR
4. M P SURESHA,
S/O PUTTARANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT MAVINAYAKANAHALLIPURA POST,
MANCHENAHALLI HOBLI,
GAURIBIDNAUR TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA POST.
5. B M RANGASWAMY,
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT BUDAMANAHALLI ARKERE POST,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
ALL THE RESPONDENTS MAY BE SERVED THROUGH
KARMIKA VARGA ADITHYA HOROLOGICALS LTD.,
C/O K V RAMANUJAPPA, S/O VASANTHAPPA,
KODIHALLI, KONAGHATTA POST,
DODDABALLAPUR TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY M SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED IN REF.NO.49/1994 DATED
13.9.2010 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651
WP No. 9724 of 2012
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the award dated 13.09.2010 in Ref.No.49/1994 on the file of the Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru.
2. In terms of the said award, the petitioner/employer is directed to reinstate five workmen-respondents No.1 to 5 with backwages, continuity of service and consequential benefits. The Court also held that amount paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') has to be adjusted towards the backwages. Hence, the employer is before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/employer would submit that, in the first round of litigation in Writ Petition No.26592/ 2002 vide order dated 27.02.2007, this Court had allowed the petition in part and in the said order, the award of reinstatement with backwages, with continuity of service and consequential benefits was confirmed. However, award granting 25% of the wages during lay-off period is set aside.
4. It is to be noticed that, in the first round of petition, in W.P. No.26592/2002, there were 16 respondents/workmen. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR
5. On 15.03.2007, W.P.No.26592/2002 was listed again, apparently, on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/employer in the said petition. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the dispute between the respondents/ workmen and the petitioner/employer in the said petition was already settled in terms of the settlement entered into between those 16 respondents and the employer.
6. It is an admitted fact that the documents relating to the said settlements were placed before the Court by way of a rejoinder in the said petition even before the final order dated 27.02.2007 was passed. It is submitted that the documents are placed on 10.04.2006. It appears that the order dated 27.02.2007 was passed without noticing the said documents in the rejoinder.
7. Thus, the matter was listed on 15.03.2007 and out of 16 respondents in the said petition, 11 respondents admitted that settlement is arrived at and 5 workmen who are the respondents in this petition disputed the settlement. In this background, the Court passed the following order:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR "15/03/2007 W.P.No.26592/2002 This matter was heard and order was also dictated in the open court and after the completion of the order, a submission was made to find out, as to whether the five workmen have signed the settlement or not and today, the learned Counsel for the respondents - workmen submits that there is no settlement. However, I have already made it clear in the order that, if the workmen have signed the settlement and if the Labour Court comes to the conclusion that the signatures are of those workmen, then the settlement binds them. In case, the Labour Court comes to a conclusion that the settlement is not signed by the workmen, then the order in this writ petition also covers the case of those five workmen.
In the light of the order already passed on 27.2.2007, writ petition stands disposed of".
8. Pursuant to this order, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for consideration. The Labour Court has passed the impugned award.
9. It is an admitted factual position that the evidence was led relating to the settlements said to have taken place between the petitioner and the respondents. The respondents/workmen who had disputed the signature before this Court on 15.03.2007, admitted the signature and tried to raise the contention that the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR settlement was extracted by misleading them.
10. It is the contention that the terms of the settlement were signed under an impression that workmen are being paid Section 17B wages under the Act, 1947 in terms of the interim order granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.26592/2002.
11. This Court had directed the petitioner to produce the records if any, to show that, what is paid under the alleged settlement is not Section 17B wages, but the amount as agreed in terms of the settlement which is other than Section 17B wages.
12. In response to the said oral direction, the documents are produced along with an application dated 04.02.2026 and these records would indicate that Section 17B wages are paid to the respondents every month through demand draft and same was sent through registered post. The payment of this amount is not disputed by the respondents. The documents relating to the alleged settlement marked at Exhibits-M41 to M45 would reveal the payment of amount as agreed in the settlement. Admittedly, said amount is higher than what is paid under Section 17B.
13. Referring to these circumstances, learned counsel for -7- NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR the petitioner would urge that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned award. It is the contention that the Labour Court could not have gone into the validity or otherwise of the alleged settlements referred to by the petitioner, as the scope of enquiry before the Labour Court was limited by the order dated 15.03.2007 passed by this Court.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Labour Court is justified in passing the impugned award. It is the primary contention of the respondent No.1 that a settlement in case, takes place has to be in conformity with the requirement of Rule No.59 of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka) Rules, 1957 (for short 'Rules, 1957') and it is his contention that the settlement is not reported to the Government as required under Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 59 under Rules, 1957. It is his further contention that, the entire amount payable to the respondents were not paid even under the said settlement and more particularly, the gratuity is not paid. Thus, it is the contention that the Labour Court is justified in passing the interim reward.
15. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR
16. As can be noticed from the records, it is an admitted factual position that the documents relating to settlement marked at Exhibits-M41 to M45 were placed before this Court by way of rejoinder. Even before the order is passed on 27.02.2007 in Writ Petition No.26592/2002 and though the order was passed on 27.02.2007 without noticing the said settlements, the matter was listed on 15.03.2007 at the instance of the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Court, the settlements arrived at between the parties.
17. As already noticed, 11 of 16 respondents in the said petition admitted that they entered into settlement and the Court said the settlement binds them. As far as remaining 5 who disputed the settlement and who are the respondents in this petition, the matter was remitted to the Labour Court for adjudication. But what is required to be noticed is in terms of order dated 15.03.2007 extracted above, the Court has limited the scope of enquiry before the Labour Court. The Court said that, in case of signatures are that of workmen, then, the settlement binds them and in case the signatures are not that of the workmen, then the order dated 27.02.2007 binds the employer.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR
18. It is an admitted factual position before this Court now that, the signatures are that of the respondents. Even the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the signatures are that of respondents. That being the position, the Court is of the view that, it was not open for the Labour Court to expand the scope of inquiry.
19. The contention of the respondents that, what is paid under the agreement marked at Exhibits-M41 to 45 is only Section 17B wages, cannot be accepted. The reason is, there are records to indicate that Section 17B wages are paid to the respondents till the date of the settlement and after the settlement in the year 2004, Section 17B wages are stopped. The respondents/workmen have not complained before this Court to say that Section 17B wages are not paid despite the Court order. This would also indicate that the settlements have taken place in the year 2004. Thus, the contention that the settlements are on account of fraud, misrepresentation cannot be accepted.
20. It is also relevant to notice that, no application is filed to amend the claim statement which was filed earlier to the aforementioned settlements. Without raising a foundational fact relating to the alleged fraud and misrepresentation, the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR respondents/workmen tried to expand the scope of enquiry by leading evidence relating to the alleged fraud and misrepresentation, which again is not permissible. As already noticed, even the amendment application was also not permissible, given the mandate of the order dated 15.03.2007.
21. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would refer to Rule 59 of the Rules, 1957 to contend that the disputed settlements are not in compliance with the requirement of Rule 59, the Court is of the view that vide order dated 15.03.2007, the Court has already held that, the settlement binds the respondents in case the signatures are established. Since the signatures are established, the respondents are bound by the order dated 15.03.2007 and the Court is of the view that the settlement binds. Under these circumstances, the impugned award could not have been passed.
22. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that, gratuity amount which is required to be paid in terms of the statute under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not paid, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said amount is also paid, and in case it is not paid, the same would be
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:12651 WP No. 9724 of 2012 HC-KAR paid as required under law. Said submission is placed on record.
23. Hence the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is disposed of.
(ii) The impugned award dated 13.09.2010 on the file of Principal Labour Court at Bengaluru is set-
aside.
(iii) The settlement dated 22.11.2004 binds the respondents.
(iv) In case the gratuity amount is not yet paid to the respondents, same shall be paid with applicable rate of interest as provided under the Statute, within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21