- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9719 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/S PARAGON POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.8/2. GANGADHARANAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU 562 123 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER PRODUCTION MR. SHIJUMON P (REGISTER UNDER COMPANIES ACT) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHAKAR RAO K.,ADVOCATE) AND: BANGALORE KARMIKARA SANGHA (REGD) (REGD) NO.8, ADARSHA NILAYA RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU 560 058, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REGISTER UNDER TRADE UNION ACT) …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAIK V S.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, DATED 25.10.2024 IN AID NO. 28/2020 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G. 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 is aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2024 in A.I.D.No.28/2020 on the file of the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order dated 01.10.2024, has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner has filed this application imploring with the Tribunal to take up Issue No.3, which reads as under, as a Preliminary Issue: Whether the second party is justified in contending that the dispute is barred by limitation. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 The Tribunal has observed that if a question is a mixed question of fact and law, it cannot be taken up as a Preliminary Issue. The Tribunal, with this observation, has concluded: "A careful perusal of the materials on record, the issue No.1 is pertains to the alleged delay in raising the dispute by the first party. Since, this issue requires evidence of the parties, it cannot be tried as preliminary issue. This tribunal cannot hold a mini trial on this issue." 2. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court will have to interfere with the Tribunal's impugned order dated 01.10.2024 because it is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court on a belated reference under Section 10 of the ID Act, and because the Tribunal has failed to consider the facts of the case in concluding that the question of limitation requires evidence and as such cannot be taken up as a Preliminary Issue. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 3. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Ram1 to underscore the enunciation by a Division Bench of this Court in Telecom District Manager and Others Vs. A.A. Angali and Others2 thus: "13. Recently, the above principles have again been reiterated in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutti [2000 (2) L.L.N. 21]. In Para. 6, at pages 24 and 25, whereof, it has been held that: “Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under S. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has 1 (2006) 5 SCC 433 2 2000(87)FLR97 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 exercised powers in this case after a lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject-matter of reference under S. 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under S. 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. 4. Mr. K. Prabhakar Rao, on the petitioner’s case that the respondent’s application is belated, while inviting this Court's attention to the different Issues framed by the Tribunal for its due consideration of the reference, submits that the respondent's claim has already been decided by the concerned Labour Court in Application No.10/2015 and notwithstanding these circumstances, a claim for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 wages starting from the year 1991 is referred by the Appropriate Government. 5. Mr. V. S. Naik, the learned counsel for the respondent, in rebuttal, canvasses the following. [a] The Tribunal has not foreclosed the question of limitation and will have to be answered by the Tribunal in the light of the evidence that can be brought on record to support the pleadings on seeking a reference in the period past 2018. [b] The respondent is categorical in its Claim Statement that, until the details annexed to Annexure - B was made available, it could not have known that certain workers, because they had successfully conducted proceedings after the Apex Court, were being discriminated in being paid wages lesser than the wages paid to those engaged in similar work. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 However, Mr. V. S. Naik does not dispute the propositions exposited by the Apex Court and the Division Bench asserting that the applicability of those proposed expositions will have to be decided in the light of the evidence that the respondent can place on record. 6. This Court must examine whether the Labour Court's impugned order suffers from infirmity in law because it is opposed to the proposition that though law does not prescribe any time limit for a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act, this jurisdiction cannot be invoked at any point of time. This Court must answer this question in the specific assertion by the respondent in Paragraph No.7 of the Claim Statement. This paragraph reads as under: "It is submitted that keeping an eye in respect of the employees who were agitating the matter before various forums being aggrieved by the action of the second party in terminating their services, the second party resorted to worst kind - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 of unfair labour practice as defined under Section 2 (ra) read with V Schedule to the Act by giving them salary less than what they are entitled to. It is submitted that their counterpart working in the second party are paid wages which is much higher than the wages being received by these 18 workmen as indicated in the statement already marked as Document No.1. In the statement prepared by the first party Union, the names of the workmen, in whose case, the wages paid by the second party is higher than that of the wages being paid to these 18 workmen, are mentioned. It is under these circumstances, the first party Union raised a demand before the second party management. Since the second party did not respond to the demand petition filed by the first party Union, the matter was taken up before the Assistant Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Bengaluru Division No.1." 7. This Court must observe that this paragraph reads that they did not have all the necessary details until the date on which the statement which is appended to the reference is furnished. This assertion is an assertion in fact and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 whether this assertion can be sustained in the light of the earlier proceedings, including the proceedings in Application No.10/2015, will have to be ascertained based on the evidence that would be let in by the parties. In the light of the afore, this Court is not persuaded to take exception with the Tribunal's finding that the question raised on the limitation is a mixed question of fact and law; that the parties will have to lead evidence, and that there need not be a mini trial on limitation with a further trial thereafter. 8. This Court must next observe that the Labour Court, on conclusion of evidence, must examine the merits of the question of limitation in the light of the settled law as stated above. As such, there cannot be any interference, but given the dispute with the petitioner also asserting that it is not possible for it to maintain records for the relevant period, this Court must direct an expeditious - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17844 WP No. 9719 of 2025 disposal of the application on all Issues. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition stands disposed of with liberty to both the petitioner and the respondent, to place on record a certified copy of this order with the Tribunal, calling upon the Tribunal, subject to its Board, to endeavour to dispose of the reference before 31.12.2025. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB