- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22869 WP No. 18295 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18295 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: K.L.J.A. KIRAN BABU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 248/7B, 5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS, VENKATAPURA, KORAMANGALA I BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K L J A KIRAN BABU, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. HONORABLE REGISTRAR VIGILANCE HONORABLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001 2. HONORABLE SECRETARY DEPT OF LABOUR, VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 3. HONORABLE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DGP OFFICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560002. 4. THE MANAGEMENT OF HEWLETT PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PVT. ELECTRONICS CITY, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU (IMPLEADED AS PER C/O/D 09.02.2017) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.A. SUBRAMANI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R4-SERVED; V/O/DATED 15.02.2017 NOTICE TO R1-R3 IS NOT NECESSARY) Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22869 WP No. 18295 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 OR R-2 TO INVESTIGATE AS TO HOW THE LABOUR COURT HAND OVER LOOKED OR DISREGARDED THE HOLISTIC OBJECTIVE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE ID ACT, AS PER THE CONFORTS OR CONVENIENCES OR TACTICS OF THE WEALTHY MANAGEMENT AND ITS LEGAL PRACTITIONERS AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. To direct the R1 or R2 to investigate as to how the Labour Court had overlooked or disregarded the holistic objective of the statutory provisions of the ID Act, as per the comforts or conveniences or tactics of the wealthy Management & its legal practitioners? 2. To direct the R1 or R3 or State Police Department to investigate as to how the Labour Court has co- ordinated with the contentions of the wealthy Management of Hewlett Packard to handle me “as a workman as well as a non-workman” in the very same judicial proceedings at the Labour Court? 3. To direct the R1 or R3 to investigate as “under which provision of ID Act”, that the Labour Court has allowed the wealthy Management of Hewlett Packard to file its objection statement months & months after the summons to it? 4. To direct the R1 or R2 to investigate as “under which provision of ID Act” that, the Labour Court has allowed Four Legal Practitioners on behalf of the wealthy Management Party, contrary to the crystal clear statute of ID Act? - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22869 WP No. 18295 of 2016 2. Even according to the petitioner (Party-in-person) what is challenged is the tactics allegedly resorted to by respondent No.4 before the Labour Court. 3. On enquiry as to whether any orders have been passed by the Labour Court in the proceedings pending before the Labour Court, the Party-in-person submits that has not challenged any order passed by the Labour Court. 4. If that be so, the present petition challenging so called tactics on part of respondent No.4 would not survive for consideration. 5. The petition stands dismissed. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge any order passed by the Labour Court. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18