Karnataka High Court
Nuclear Power Corporation Of India ... vs Appellate Authority on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB
WA No. 100148 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
WRIT APPEAL NO.100148 OF 2023 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF
INDIA LIMITED,
(A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING)
KAIGA GENERATING STATION,
FIRST FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING,
KAIGA PLANT SITE, P. O. KAIGA - 581 400,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY TIS ENIOR MANAGER (H.R),
SRI. RAJESH KUMAR PATRA.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad 1. APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
(STANDING ORDERS)ACT AND DEPUTY CHIEF
LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL),
SHRAM SADAN, III CROSS, III MAIN,
YESHAVANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
III STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
2. CERTIFYING OFFICER,
UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT
(STANDING ORDERS )ACT 1946,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB
WA No. 100148 of 2023
HC-KAR
SHRAMSADAN, III CROSS, III MAIN,
YESHVANTHPUR INDUSTRIAL SUBURB,
III STAGE, TUMKUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 022.
3. KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
KAIGA GENERATION CENTRE, KAIGA 1-4,
KAIGA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
BY ITS PRESIDENT SUMANTH HEBLEKAR.
4. GENERAL SECRETARY,
KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
KAIGA GENERATION CENTRE, KAIGA 1 -4,
KAIGA, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. SRI H. B. VIJAYA KUMAR,
JOINT SECRETARY,
KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
KAIGA GENERATION CENTRE,
KAIGA 1-4, KAIGA,
UTTARA KANANDA DISTRICT.
6. SRI. RAJU R. NAIK,
EXECUTIVE MEMBER,
KAIGA PROJECT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
KAIGA GENERATION CENTRE,
KAIGA 1-4, KAIGA,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.B. KANAVI, CGSC FOR R1 & R2
SRI SANTOSHKUMAR B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R6)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THAT THE
ORDER DATED 7-12-2022, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION NO.103936/2022, INSOFAR IT
RELATES TO NOT ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN ITS
ENTIRETY, IS CONCERNED, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND THE
WRIT PETITION NO.103936/2022, MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST
THROUGH OUT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB
WA No. 100148 of 2023
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) Aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2022 passed in W.P. No.103936/2022, the petitioner therein has preferred this writ appeal.
2. The appellant is a Government of India Enterprise established under the provisions of Atomic Energy Act, 1962, functioning under the administrative control of Department of Atomic Energy. The standing orders in respect of the Kaiga Generating Station, Kaiga, Uttar Kannada district has been certified by the certifying officer under sub Section (2) of Section 5 of the Industrial Employments (Standing Orders Act, 1946) with effect from 30/8/2011.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR
3. Clause 10 of the said standing orders deals with attendance and late coming of the employees and Clause 10.2 of the standing orders reads as under:
"10.2 Every workman shall be present at specified time and at his work place. Workman attending late shall be liable to deduction of wages provided for in the payment of wages Act, 1936. A grace period of 15 minutes may be permitted. However, the Competent Authority may be permitted. However, the Competent Authority may condone late attendance upto one hour for three occasions in a month."
4. The respondents-employees' Association submitted a representation with the 2nd respondent to modify the standing orders contained clause 10.2 of the standing orders. The 2nd respondent by order dated 3/3/2022 modified the clause 10.2, which reads thus:
"10.2 Every workman shall be present at specified time and at his work place. Workman attending late shall be liable to deduction of wages provided for in the payment of Wages Act, 1936. A grace period of 15 minutes should be permitted. However, the Competent Authority must condone late attendance upto 1.5 hours for three occasions, thereby making 4.5 hours in a month."-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR
5. It is submitted by both the counsel for the appellant as well as respondents No.3 to 6 that the relaxation period of 15 minutes and one hour was part of the Standing Orders from the year 2011. The same was changed in the year 2022 at the behest of respondents No.3 to 6 by respondent No.2, after hearing both the appellant and respondents No.3 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached respondent No.1, who confirmed the order of respondent No.2. Aggrieved by it, W.P. No.103936/2022 was filed by the appellant herein.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has passed the following Order:
i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii) The impugned order certified/modified clause 10.2 of the standing orders insofar as it relates to the term 'must' to be read as 'may', and it is held that the Petitioner shall condone the delay only if sufficient cause is made out by the employees for the late attendance."-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR
7. Not satisfied by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
8. The case of the appellant is that the Factories Act, 1948, permits the industries to compel an employee to work till nine hours a day with a maximum of 48 hours per week. It is submitted that taking into consideration the location and other aspects of the appellant-industry, the employees have been asked to work eight hours a day for six days in a week amounting to 48 hours in a week. It is further submitted that, during the said working hours, the workman is also permitted to take a break of 30 minutes for lunch and the workman effectively works 7½ hours a day. It is also submitted that, in addition to the above, as per the earlier Standing Orders, a workman is permitted late arrival of 15 minutes per day and the authority is also entitled to condone the late arrival of one hour for three occasions in a month at the time of exigencies. It is contended that, when there was no requirement to extend the same, respondents No.3 to 6-Union, without any justification, raised a demand -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR for extension of the time condoned for late arrival and that respondents Nos.1 and 2, without any justification, have extended the condonation time of late arrival from 1 to 1.5 hours. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge, without appreciating the facts in a right perspective has passed the impugned order. For the said reason, it is prayed that the order of learned Single Judge be modified and the writ petition be allowed as prayed for.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6 justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
10. The clause in the standing orders of the appellant Industry which is in dispute, which stood originally reads as under:
"10.2 Every workman shall be present at specified time and at his work place. Workman attending late shall be liable to deduction of wages provided for in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A grace period of 15 minutes may be permitted. However, the Competent Authority -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR may condone late attendance up to one hour for three occasions in a month."
11. The modified clause reads as under:
Certified / 10.2 Every workman shall be modified present at specified time and at Clause his work place. Workman attending late shall be liable to deduction of wages provided for in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. A grace period of 15 minutes should be permitted.
However, the Competent Authority must condone late attendance upto 1.5 hours for three occasions, thereby making 4.5 hours in a month
12. The justification given by respondent No.1 for ordering the said modification reads as under:
"As mentioned by the KPEA Union, the township of NPCIL, Kaiga and the Site is at distance of more around 22kms which is hectic travel consisting of more than 100 odd turns up and down with the Kali river water at one side below and the deep jungle terrain on the other side of the road. Comparing to other sites of NPCIL this particular site at Kaiga is more troublesome against all geographical presence especially in rainy season where rainy season is for six months in a year."-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. The same justification has been accepted by respondent No.1 as well as the learned Single Judge while passing their respective orders.
14. The only question that arises for consideration is taking into consideration the location of the appellant industry, did it warrant the modification in clause 10.2 of the standing orders.
15. In the meanwhile, the appellant has submitted that there has been a compromise between the appellant and the Union and the said terms of settlement reads as under.
"The Management has agreed to give 2 hours permission on 3 occasions in a month for exigencies (late coming, early going or in between punches), subject to compensating the same on any other working day of the same month with the permission of Leave Sanctioning Authority to employees, including employees on round-the- clock shifts."
16. The same is however denied by the counsel for respondents No.3 to 6. In the light of the submission of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR respondents No.3 to 6, there is a requirement to decide the dispute on hand.
17. Admittedly, the industry of appellant is an Atomic Power Plant and the same is situated in a remote area in the middle of a jungle and the employees are generally residing at a distance of around 20 kilometers away from the place of work. However, it is also not in dispute that the place is also well connected by roads.
18. Further, the appellant has been in operation from the year 2000. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents are not in a position to assist the Court about the maximum working hours everyday since its establishment, there is no dispute that since 2011 till 2022 the earlier standing order giving relaxation of only one hour for a period of 3 days in a month was in force. The mobility of a workmen and the comfort to reach his workplace can only be considered to have improved in 2022 in comparison to 2011.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR
19. Nobody forced the workmen to get employed in the appellant-Power Plant. It is under their own volition they have sought the employment there. They should be having knowledge of the working hours and other conditions and they have voluntarily taken up the employment. Given the modern day amenities, transportation and infrastructure making a person work compulsorily for 8 hours a day taking into consideration the location of the appellant-Power Plant cannot be considered, unreasonable or oppressive to the workman. The standing orders, even if did not contain a clause regarding condonation of late arrival, in our opinion, cannot be termed as unreasonable.
20. Respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 have not given any justifiable reasons in amending the existing standing order. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, erred in appreciating the aforementioned facts.
21. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal is hereby allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside and the following order is passed:
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2822-DB WA No. 100148 of 2023 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The order dated 07.12.2022 passed in W.P. No.103936/2022 is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent in File No.51(1) 2018-B2 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition modifying the Clause No.10.2 of the standing order, is hereby set aside.
(iii) The order of respondent No.1 in File No.51(1)2022-B1, dated 12.09.2022 in confirming the order of respondent No.2, (Annexure-B to the writ petition) is also set aside.
Sd/-
(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/-
(B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE KMS: Para 1 to 8 CKK:
CT:ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40