- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4662 WP No. 51911 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 51911 OF 2017 (L-TER) BETWEEN: M/S OM GANESH TRACTORS SHANKAR MUTT ROAD SHIVAMOGGA-577201 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER BHASKAR KAMATH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NATARAJA BALLAL A., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI PRAKASH S BENNUR S/O SHIVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O KELAGINAKEREI SHIRALAKOPPA SHIKARIPURA TLAUK SHIVAMOGGA DIST-577 201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SATEESH CHANDRA K.V., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 06.03.2017 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT CUM ESI COURT AT MANGALORE, D.K. ON APPLICATION (LCM) NO.3/2015 VIDE ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4662 WP No. 51911 of 2017 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 3. It is noticed that pursuant to the stay order granted by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the entire amount before this Court on 26.03.2018. It is noticed from the records produced that the Labour Court issued notice to the respondent before it, who is the present petitioner. The respondent engaged Advocate. However, the petitioner has not chosen to file statement of objections and has not chosen to cross-examine the respondent. The evidence led by the petitioner is not rebutted. 4. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the claim made by the respondent relating to arrears of salary - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4662 WP No. 51911 of 2017 as the documents would suggest that he was appointed on a salary of Rs.8,000/- as basic pay. 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointment order produced by the respondent is forged, it is noticed that the petitioner has not taken any steps to file statement of objection and to cross-examine the respondent. Under these circumstances, the contention that document is forged cannot be accepted. 6. Though the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the matter has to be remanded, considering the claim of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that this matter is pending before this Court since last seven years and before the Labour Court, the proceeding was initiated in the year 2015 and the same was pending for two years. 7. Even if the matter is to be remitted, the petitioner has to bear cost of the present petition as well - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4662 WP No. 51911 of 2017 as the cost of the proceedings before the Labour Court. Under these circumstances, considering the quantum of the award passed by the Labour Court, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to remand the matter. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the account of the respondent along with interest. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NMS