Reported Judgements
Declaration of Protected Workmen under Industrial Disputes Act,1947
Cause Title: M/s. WONDERLA Holidays Limited vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru Division-1
Reported in: 2019 LLR 228, 2019(1) AKR 296, 2019(I)CLR 467, [2019(160)FLR420], 2019(1)KarLJ177, 2018:KHC :27137, 2019LabIC833, (2019)ILLJ57Kant, 2019(2)LLN450(Kar.), MANU/KA/5017/2018
​
Key Points:
-
Workman can be denied status of 'protected workmen' not only on the ground that he has been facing 'serious offences' but for minor offences such as assault or wrongful restraint since such offences are sufficient to disturb industrial peace and harmony
-
To be a protected workman, quality of conduct and behaviour of the workman has to be beyond doubt - Law-breaker cannot be given status of 'protected workman'
Cause Title: Wonderla Karmika Sangha, Bangaluru vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bengaluru and Another
Reported in: 2019 LLR 767, 2019:KHC:3440-DB, MANU/KA/0326/2019
​
Key Points:
-
A workman facing departmental enquiry or a criminal trial, can be denied status of a 'protected workman'.
-
A workman dismissed from service can't be declared as 'protected workmen
Cause Title: M/s. Armstrong Design and Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited vs. The Assistant Labour Commissioner Division-2 and Another
​
Reported in: 2024 LLR 395, [2024 (181) FLR 175], MANU/KA/0822/2024
​
Key Points:
-
Union is duty bound to furnish the details sought by the employer and cannot refuse to give those particulars.
-
Rejection to grant status of a protected workmen either on the ground that there are criminal cases pending against workmen or on the ground that they are dismissed from service, is a good ground.
-
Settled law is that if a workman is facing charges even for minor offences, even then, he can be denied special status of a protected workman.
-
Quality of behaviour and conduct of workmen seeking status of ‘protected workmen' have to be beyond doubt.
-
It is not even necessary that a conviction should be recorded against the workman before he can be denied to be a ‘protected workman'.
-
If the delinquent workman facing disciplinary proceedings is bestowed with status of ‘protected workman', it will be nothing but encourage other workmen to indulge in such activities and get them protected under the shield of ‘protected workman'.
Claiming Interim Relief - Case pertaining to Charter of Demand
Cause Title: M/s Armstrong Design Acmite India Manufacturing Pvt Ltd Vs. Armstrong Design Acmite India Manufacturing Workers Union
Reported in: 2024 (180) FLR 669, MANU/KA/1004/2024
​
Key Points:
-
In a case pertaining to Charter Of Demand the trade union is legally required to prove before the Tribunal that its demands were justified before claiming any interim relief
-
It is settled law that only in an exceptional case and when a prima facie case is made out, then the consideration of interim relief would arise
Claiming Interim Relief - Case pertaining to Termination
Cause Title: Teknic Euchner Electronics Private Limited Vs. Shenkaravva D.G. and Ors
Reported in: [2022(174)FLR327], 2022:KHC :9026, MANU/KA/1337/2022
​
Key Points:
-
Granting of interim relief is not mechanical process and the parties have to make out a prima facie case of their entitlement.
-
Prima facie case involves the prima facie right of the respondents and the defence of the petitioner. Respondents have to prima facie show that denial of work to them was unjust. Whereas, petitioner has to show that the dismissal of the respondents and consequential denial of work was for the reasons beyond its control and on account of situation created by the respondents themselves
Prosecution
Criminal Prosecution under Industrial Disputes Act,1947
Cause Title: Ramesh Mehra and Ors. Vs. Umesh and Ors.
Reported in: [2022(173)FLR1023], 2022:KHC :12991, 2022LLR618, MANU/KA/2478/2022
​
Key Points: ​
-
Settled law is that without making the Company as accused, no prosecution can be initiated against the representative of the company
-
Prosecution of Director or individual Manager without impleading Company as accused is not maintainable.
Cause Title: Shakti Precision Components (India) Private Limited Vs. The Additional Commissioner of Labour (IR) and Ors..
Reported in: MANU/KA/3444/2024, 2024:KHC:8316, 2024 (183) FLR 969, 2025 LLR 141
​
Key Points: ​
-
Granting permission for prosecution under Section 29 of Industrial Disputes Act,1947 would have a serious consequence on such a person. In that circumstance, Authority which grants permission for prosecution has greater responsibility.
-
Order under Section 29 of 1947 Act cannot be passed lightly. The Authority which considers complaint under Section 29 of 1947 Act shall have to apply its mind and shall have to record its finding with regard to breach or continuing breach.
-
Unless specific breach or continuing breach is recorded on the complaint after considering the objections if submitted, the Authority would not get jurisdiction to grant permission for prosecution
Criminal Prosecution under Minimum Wages Act,1948 and Contract Labour (Regularization and Abolition) Act,1970
Cause Title: Michiel M. Van Der Maat and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
Reported in: 2023(3) AKR 257, 2023(III)C LR403, [2023(177)FLR608], 2023:KHC :14190, MANU/KA/0516/2023
​
Key Points:
-
The initiation of prosecution and summoning of an accused to stand trial has serious consequences. They extend from monetary loss to humiliation and disrepute in society, sacrifice of time and effort to prepare defence and anxiety of uncertain times.
-
Criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course or without adequate and necessary investigation of facts on mere suspicion, or when the violation of law is doubtful.
-
It is the duty and responsibility of the public officer to proceed responsibly and ascertain the true and correct facts. Execution of law without appropriate acquaintance with legal provisions and comprehensive sense of their application may result in an innocent being prosecuted.
-
Equally, it is the court's duty not to issue summons in a mechanical and routine manner
Criminal Prosecution under Factories Act,1948
Cause Title: Krishna Bhat and Ors. Vs. The State and Ors.
Reported in: 2024 LLR 1234, MANU/KA/3145/2024, 2024:KHC :39258
​
Key Points: ​​
-
In the absence of any specific responsibility alleged, or stating, employees of the factory cannot be held vicariously liable for negligence towards safety of the workmen working in the factory when neither the Company nor its Directors are accused.
Cause Title: Mohammed Azeez and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka.
Reported in: MANU/KA/6219/2021, [2022(174)FLR463], 2021:KHC :28385
​
Key Points: ​
-
When Occupier of a Factory Submits a Reply to the Show-Cause Notice issued by the Director of Factories, it is obligatory on such officer to pass an order either accepting or rejecting the reply.
-
Though there is no specific provision under the Factories Act that the concerned authority should pass an order to the reply submitted by the occupier or the factory manager, principles of natural justice require such an order to be passed, or otherwise the purpose of giving right to the occupier or the factory manager to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Factories Act becomes redundant.
Criminal Prosecution under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Cause Title: Crescent Steels and Ors. Vs. Model Infra Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
Reported in: MANU/KA/2874/2023, 2024(1) AKR 266, 2024(2)KCCR1298
​
Key Points:
-
The records show that the complainant presented a cheque signed by the accused, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite receiving a legal notice, the accused neither responded nor repaid the cheque amount. Additional documents, including the statement of account, purchase order, and email exchanges, consistently support the complainant's claim and were not disputed by the accused.
-
Therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the accused which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
Order of Reference under Industrial Disputes Act,1947
Cause Title: The Management of Tata Advanced System Limited Vs. The Secretary to Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka and Ors.
Reported in: MANU/KA/0836/2024, 2024 LLR 266, 2024-II-LLJ-667 (Kant)
​
Key Points:
-
The Government can refer a dispute to Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication only if it is an Industrial Dispute
Dispute by contract workman against Principal Employer
Cause Title: Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs. The Management, Wonderla Holidays Limited and Ors
Reported in: [2023(178)FLR696], 2023LLR886, MANU/KA/2141/2023
​
Key Points:
-
A contract workman while challenging his termination can only raise the dispute against the contractor and not against the Prinicipal Employer
Entitlement of Gratuity to teachers working in Educational Institutions
Cause Title: Krishnadevaraya Educational Trust Vs. The Union of India and Ors.
Reported in: 2024:KHC :483, [2024 (180) FLR 895], MANU/KA/0061/2024
​
Key Points:
-
Payment of Gratuity is payable to teaching staff
-
Gratuity payable to be calculated from the date of appointment
Fixation and Revision of Minimum Wages under Minimum Wages Act,1948
Cause Title: Karnataka Small Scale Industries Association and Ors. Vs. The Secretary Labour Department, Government of Karnataka Vikasa Soudha, Bangalore and Ors.
Reported in: 2019(3)KarLJ261, 2019:KHC :12914, (2019)IILLJ740Kant, MANU/KA/2360/2019
​
Key Points:
-
The Government does not have powers to direct the employer to constitute an appellate authority to adjudicate the claims related to payment of wages since Section 20 of the Act already provides for the same
-
The Appropriate Government can revise the minimum wages from retrospective effect.
-
The Appropriate Government does not have the power to direct the payment of current wages which are over and above the notified wages.
-
The Appropriate Government does not have power to direct to pay service seniority weightage
-
The Appropriate Government cannot fix and direct the employers to pay the minimum wages to the employees in managerial and supervisory cadre who does not fall in the definition of Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act,1948
Writ Petition seeking regularization of Contractors is not maintainable
Cause Title: Workmen of BEML Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr
Reported in: MANU/KA/1843/2024, 2024 (182) FLR 677, 2024 Livelaw (Kar) 287
​
Key Points:
-
The appropriate remedy is to approach the Industrial Tribunal for the regularization of workmen engaged as contractual labour and for consequential reliefs.
-
The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970 is a complete code by itself and the question about the relationship of the employer and the employee depends upon the large number of factors and the industrial adjudicator would have jurisdiction to determine the said issue.
Workmen using abusive language cannot be treated lightly
Cause Title: Jayapal K.M. Vs. The Management of Shakti Precision Components (India) Limited
Reported in: MANU/KA/1312/2024, 2024:KHC :6682, 2024 Livelaw (Kar) 115
​
Key Points:
-
The act of a workman using abusive language not once, but on several occasions cannot be treated lightly and the imposition of punishment by way of dismissal in such a case cannot be held to be disproportionate.
-
The acts of subversive of discipline are as such acts that tend to subverts discipline of tendency over through, upset and destroy discipline in any establishment. Broadly speaking, all acts which tends to destroy discipline would tantamount to "acts subversive of discipline" and which may include misconduct relating to duty, negligence going on illegal strikes, go slow, in subordination and disobedience of orders, riots and disorderly behavior.
Writ Petition challenging the order on Domestic Enquiry is not maintainable
Cause Title: Iranna Angadageri and Ors. Vs. The Management, Wonderland Holidays Limited
Reported in: MANU/KA/6826/2019, 2019:KHC :32219
​
Key Points:
-
It is an admitted fact that the finding rendered in respect of the issue as to whether the enquiry held, is fair and proper, does not pertain to the merits of the case involved therein. The issue merely is addressed to satisfy compliance with the principles of natural justice and to ensure that the employee has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the manner known to law.
-
Writ petition calling in question the orders passed on fairness of Domestic Enquiry is premature.
A claim petition filed with inordinate delay seeking compensation is not maintainable
Cause Title: Wonderla Holidays Pvt Ltd Vs. Shivakumar C
Reported in: 2024:KHC:47778
​
Key Points:
-
Claims under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 must be made within 2 years from the date of accident. In the present case, the claimant had filed the claim petition after the lapse of 10 years. Morever, the notice of accident was not given to the Management within the stipulated time.
-
Section 4(2A) of the Employees’ Compensation Act,1923 which provides for reimbursement of medical expenditure was inserted by Act No.45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010 therefore it doesnot apply retrospectively for accidents occurred before 18.01.2010
Govt cannot pass Interim Order directing payment of wages to workmen without hearing Management, Workers Union
Cause Title: The Management of Mahindra Aerostructures Pvt Ltd Vs.Principal Secretary Labour Department
Reported in: 2025 LLR 481, 2025 II LLJ 203(Kant) 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 80, MANU/KA/0742/2025, 2025:KHC:5467
​
Key Points:
-
If the Government chooses to exercise power under Section 10-B before referring the matter to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal or simultaneously chooses to pass interim orders and refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, the Government has to hear the Union as well as the Management before passing the interim order
-
While exercising power under Section 10-B, the Government has to arrive at a conclusion that the industrial dispute exists or industrial dispute is apprehended.
-
Interim order which has got the civil consequence could not have been passed without hearing the Management.
High Court Orders No Coercive Steps Against Bengaluru Hotels Association, Others For Not Paying Gratuity Insurance Premium To Employees
Cause Title: Bangalore Employers Association (R) Vs. The Principal Secretary Labour Department and Others.
Reported in: Live Law
​
Key Points:
-
The Insurance Rules compel employers to pay gratuity insurance premium even regarding those employees who have not completed five years when it cannot be disputed that only on completion of five years of service, an employee will be entitled to gratuity.
-
Further, the Insurance Rules do not distinguish between the employers based on their financial status and other parameters and this aspect will have to be considered because the insurance premium will have to be paid even before the gratuity becomes payable and would visit the small scale industries with a financial burden beyond their profits.
All issues including maintainability and fairness of Domestic Enquiry can be tried simultaneously
Cause Title: Wonderla Holidays Limited Vs. Lokesh S.C. and Ors.
Reported in: MANU/KA/0530/2023, 2023:KHC :13973
​
Key Points:
-
If the workman raises the issue of maintainability in an approval application filed by the management under Section 33(2)(b), no prejudice will be caused to either of the parties if all the issues are tried simultaneously to ensure the right to speedy trial. Particularly in the absence of any interim relief sought by the workman.
-
Otherwise, the delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D P Maheshwari V. Delhi Adminstration and Ors
High Court has jurisdiction to interfere in Matrimonial Disputes under Section 13B of Hindu marriage Act, 1955
Cause Title: Dinker M. Pai Vs. Laxmi Shenoy
Reported in: MANU/KA/1791/2021, 2021:KHC :5389-DB
​
Key Points:
-
High Court has the jurisdiction to consider the joint petition seeking dissolution of marriage on mutual consent, in the matrimonial justice.
Industrial Court does not have the power to stay its own proceedings
Cause Title: Manikantan P. Vs. The Management of Modern Automotive Ltd.
Reported in: MANU/KA/3955/2022, 2022:KHC :27377
​
Key Points:
-
Grant of approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 does not conclude the dispute and the parties would be free to seek reference under Section 10 of the Act and the workman concerned is free to file a claim statement under Section 10 (4-A) of the Act.
-
The Court cannot stay adjudication proceedings under the guise of pendency of approval application.