- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12465 WP No. 19089 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19089 OF 2014 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S MYSORE CHROME TANNING COMPANY LTD., C/O MSIL HOUSE NO.36, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.V.GANESH. 2. M/S MSIL M.S.I.L HOUSE, NO.36, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560052. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (I/C), MR.A.M.CHANDRAPPA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12465 WP No. 19089 of 2014 BANNNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560029. 2. MR S P GOPAL S/O LATE S.K.PEMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NO.1101/1, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, KALIDASA NAGAR, BSK 3RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE-560085. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RASHMI RAO., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. A.J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER/R-1 IN IAA-1/CR-125/2009- 10, DATED 13.04.2012 (VIDE ANNX-K). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12465 WP No. 19089 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the first respondent's Order dated 13.04.2012 [Annexure-K], and the first respondent by this Order has permitted the second respondent to prosecute the petitioner under Section 29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act']. 2. If Sri Narasimha Swamy N S, the learned counsel for the petitioners, points out that the second respondent even as of the date of the petition in the year 2014, was aged 62 years, and the learned counsel on record for him must place on record whether the second respondent could in fact prosecute the petitioners in terms of the permission, Sri A J Srinivasan, the learned counsel on record for the second respondent, submits that he has tried to contact the second respondent but unsuccessfully. 3. Ultimately, the learned counsels submit in unison that this petition could be disposed of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12465 WP No. 19089 of 2014 reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek revival in the event the second respondent, within a reasonable time, initiates action in terms of the permission granted leaving open all contentions to be urged in the event of such revival. 4. This Court finds considerable merit in the submissions, and hence, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek revival of this petition in the event the second respondent chooses to act in terms of the permission by the impugned Order within a period of six [6] months from today, observing otherwise, that it must be treated as closed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-