The Principal Secretary v. The Managing Director,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12996 OF 2026 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LGB FORGE STAFF EMPLOYEES UNION NO.127, NALA BEEDI, K.R. MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR LGB FORGE PRIVATE LIMITED 5TH MAIN, K.R.S. ROAD METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-570 016. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ORDER OR GIVE DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DATED: 29.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN REF. NO. 25/2019 TO THE EXTENT THE CONCERNED WORKMEN ARE AGGRIEVED VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY WHICH THE LABOUR COURT HAS DENIED FULL BACK WAGES AND ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE CONCERNED WORKMEN AFTER HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING A HARSH PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL AND THE AWARD IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT THE CONCERNED WORKMEN ARE AGGRIEVED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶1This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated

29.10.2025 passed by the Labour Court at Mysore in Reference No.25/2019, whereby the Labour Court has partly allowed the reference and directed the respondent-Second Party to reinstate the petitioner-First Party into service with continuity of service, without back wages and without consequential benefits.

¶2For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Labour Court. The petitioner herein is referred to as First Party and respondent is referred to as Second Party.

¶3The First Party is the LGB Forge Staff Employees Union. Seven employees were working with the Second Party-Factory in different capacities. The Second Party initiated domestic enquiry against the said employees, who are members of the First Party-Union, and pursuant

to the said enquiry, they were dismissed from service by order dated 29.09.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the First Party sought a reference before the competent authority. Accordingly, the competent authority referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication on the following points:

¶1жяΣѓ ẀUÀðѕẀĞỳѕ Λднψ..Θ ę'―†eïð Ρ., 5 ė'† Λ‡Ρ, Ą'.жφ.нύ џĥ'ķ, Λ†эхΣŅ егĉ', Λ‡ẃ―џ— зẀџ— јłĖỳї ĄỳAiÀÄðѕ²ð, нψ  Θ ę'―†eïð ĥỳIJρ ќѓ—ķ ΧњľгΐẀUÀðѕ нгĘỳńΝ†ύ ў―Βўο, їг.127, ėỳĠỳ Θ†Α Ą'.жφ ЅẄĠỳń, Λ‡ẃ―џ— зẀΠгѕ јłΎΒΑẃґļя—Ẁ Ąỳ«ÄðPÀĞỳѕ 1) Υł† ъхΐ†ϋ Ğỳϊ жφ (нгĘỳńΝ† їг.44), 2) Υł† еїгѓ Ğỳϊ (нгĘỳńΝ† їг.130), 3) Υł† ˜уĨΧѕĹўŁ (нгĘỳńΝ† їг.258), 4)Υł† нύ.џгхėỳє(нгĘỳńΝ†їг.546),5)Υł†жφ.ќгъ—(нгĘỳńΝ† їг.30), 6)Υł† ΥẀу—Ĝỳφ Ą'.нг. (нгĘỳńΝ† їг.127) Ħỳх― 7) Υł† ģỳŁќ— (нгĘỳńΝ† їг.317), зẀџ—хಳї—Ļ ¢£ÁAPÀ:29.09.2018 Πгѕ ĥ'†Ģ'Νгѕ ẀċỳĆ'―ΣΧџ—Ẁ÷ѕ— ėỳŁўẃќŀѓĢ'†?

2.Ħỳ¯ґńΐѕĹΡńẃѕΠĄỳ«Äðуџ—ĝỳẀјΠĦỳџĄ'ĨеºÀðџ—? 

¶4Pursuant to the reference, the Labour Court has registered the reference as Reference No.25/2019. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court has framed the following issues and additional issue for consideration: 1) Whether the Second Party proves that the domestic enquiry conducted by it against the First Party workmen is just and fair? 2) Whether the First Party workmen prove that they have been illegally dismissed from service on 29.09.2018? 3) What order or award? (Issue No.1 shall be treated as preliminary issue) ADDITIONAL ISSUE: 1) Whether the Second Party proves that First Party is not a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of I.D.Act?

¶5After hearing the parties, the Labour Court answered Issue Nos.1 & 2 and the additional issue in the affirmative and Point No.1 in the negative. Issue No.3 and Point No.2 were answered in terms of the final order. Consequently,

by order dated 29.10.2025, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference and directed the Second Party to reinstate the First Party workmen with continuity of service, without backwages and consequential benefits, within one month from the date on which the award becomes enforceable. Being aggrieved by the denial of backwages and consequential benefits, the present writ petition is filed.

¶6Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Labour Court has failed to consider the materials produced by the First Party to show that they remained unemployed for all the years from 29.09.2018 till date without any earnings. Without considering these aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has held that the First Party has not produced any material to show that they remained unemployed for all these years. He further contended that the Labour Court after setting aside the dismissal order passed by the Second Party against the

First Party workmen as illegal, ought not to have denied the backwages and consequential benefits. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.

¶7Respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶8The First Party workmen were working with the Second Party-Factory and were dismissed from service with effect from 29.09.2018 pursuant to the domestic enquiry. The First Party challenged the said order before the Labour Court. The workmen produced evidence to show that they remained unemployed and had no earnings after 29.09.2018. However, the Labour Court has not properly considered the said evidence while denying the consequential benefits.

¶9The Labour Court has held that the dismissal of the First Party workmen was illegal and has directed their reinstatement with continuity of service. Once the dismissal is held to be illegal and reinstatement with

continuity of service is ordered, the workmen are ought to be entitled to the benefits attached to such continuity of service. Therefore, denial of consequential benefits by the Labour Court, is unsustainable. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the denial of backwages does not call for interference.

¶10In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order requires modification to the limited extent of granting consequential benefits. Hence, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is partly allowed.

b) The order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the Labour Court at Mysore in Reference No.25/2019 is modified to the aforesaid extent.

c) The First Party workmen are entitled to all consequential benefits arising out of continuity of service.

d) The Second Party is directed to grant all consequential benefits arising out of continuity of service, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

DM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 32