- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15242 WP No. 2427 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2427 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: MAHESH M S/O LATE MALLIKARJUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 6, 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS, CHOWDESHWARI ARCH ROAD, JC NAGARA, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560086. …PETITIONER (BY MS. SHILPA PRASAD., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF ABB INDIA LTD PLOT NO. 4-A, 586, PEENYA 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU 560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS LOCATION HEAD AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY., SENIOR ADVOCATE; SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE ) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15242 WP No. 2427 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2025 ON IA 4 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID NO. 18/2019 (PRODUCED AS ANNX- T) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID APPLICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed a claim under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 calling in question the respondents' decision to dismiss him from service. In such proceedings, the petitioner has filed an application [I.A.No.4] for interim relief at the rate of Rs.83,848/- per month. 2. The Labour Court has rejected this application by the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 essentially for the reasoning that reads as under: "15. The I party was subjected to cross examination by the II party on the application and affidavit filed by him in lieu of the IA and only on the bank statements in view of the order passed in I.A.No.5 dtd: 01.07.2023, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15242 WP No. 2427 of 2025 wherein, the I party was directed to lead his evidence only in respect of the bank statements. The I party during the course of his cross examination has admitted that he has got accounts in other banks other than the account in SBI, the statement of which is marked at Ext.W-1. He has also stated that he had other accounts at ICICI Bank at Rajajinagar Branch, Vijaya Bank at Dasarahalli and Bank of Baroda. Inspite of claiming that he has accounts in these banks, the first party has not produced the statements of those banks. In respect of the amounts credited to the account of the I party as shown in Ext.W-1, the I party has stated that he has availed loans to the tune of lakhs of rupees from his friends and relatives, who credit amounts to his account and also to the account of his wife. The I party has also admitted that on several occasion he has transferred amount to Namdhari's, though he has denied that he has purchased items from Namdhari's to run his canteen business. The counsel for the II party has voluntarily argued that the I party is owning a canteen business due to which huge sum of money is being credited to the account of the I party. Though the statement is not corroborated by any documentary evidence, the amounts credited - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15242 WP No. 2427 of 2025 every month to the account of the I party clearly goes to show that the I party is having his source of income, that too, to a larger extent than his list drawn salary." 3. Ms. Shilpa Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Labour Court has failed to consider the petitioner's request for interim relief in the light of the cross examination with the petitioner categorically stating that he is not running a canteen. Mr.S.N.Murthy, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent, is heard in the light of this canvass and the circumstances as borne out by the impugned order as also the settled law that merely because an enquiry is set aside, the workmen will not be entitled to interim relief and the workman must establish a prima facie case of lack of resources to maintain himself/herself from disturbance. 4. This Court must opine that the petitioner indeed tries to explain substantial deposits - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15242 WP No. 2427 of 2025 into his accounts and payment of dues from his accounts, contending that he is not in the canteen business, but the Labour Court has assessed the evidence on the threshold of a prima facie scale. This Court does not find perversity in the order justifying interference. Therefore, the petition must be refused, but this Court must also observe that the Labour Court's observations on the petitioner's encroachment during the pendency of the proceedings as aforesaid or even otherwise cannot prejudice the petitioner in the outcome. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB