- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 25957 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI SUGARS LTD., K.M.DODDI - 571 472, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SRI.K.R.NACHIAPPAN. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR & SRI HARISH R, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI DODDEGOWDA, S/O SRI DODDEGOWDA HONNEGOWDA, RESIDING AT MALLAHALLI K.M.DODDI-571422, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI G V P REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.8.2005 IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.50/2000 AT ANN-G PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 ORAL ORDER This petition is arising from the order dated 22.08.2005 in serial application No.50/2000 and also the order dated 30.01.2014 passed in application No.3/2006 on the file of Labour Court, Mysore. 2. The order dated 22.08.2005 is on an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') wherein, the present petitioner sought the approval of the Labour Court to dismiss the respondent/employee. 3. The order at Annexure-X dated 30.01.2014 is on an application under Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947. In terms of the said order, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 is allowed. 4. The petitioner before this Court is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,01,007.79 paise to the applicant within two months with the rider that in case the amount is not paid, same shall carry the interest at 10%. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 5. The application under Section 33(2)(b) is dismissed accepting the contention that respondent is not concerned with pending Reference No.3/2000. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the application under Section 33(2)(b) is dismissed on account of bonafide mistake where the petitioner- Management did not notice that a dispute was pending under Reference No.8/2000 which also concerned the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 22.08.2005 is passed pursuant to an application made by the respondent who took a stand that he is not concerned with dispute in Reference No.3/2000 pending before the Labour Court. The petitioner submits that the respondent no doubt was not concerned with the Reference No.3/2000 but was concerned with the Reference No.8/2000 and this being the position, the petitioner should be given the liberty to revive the application which is dismissed on account of mistake of fact. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 of India vs. Sidhartha Chakraborty1 to contend that the Court has the power to undo the mistake which has occurred on account of mistake of fact. 8. Sofar as the order under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947 is concerned, it is urged that there was no adjudication in terms of the order dated 22.08.2005. Without there being any order or award or an agreement in favour of the employee, the employee cannot press Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947. Thus, it is his contention that the entire order passed by the Labour Court allowing Section 33C(2) application is wholly untenable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.541/2021. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that order of dismissal passed without obtaining approval when the Industrial Dispute was pending against the respondent is one without jurisdiction and the same is void ab initio. He would refer to the judgment of the 1 (2007) 7 SCC 670 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others2. 10. It is urged that when the order of dismissal was passed, reference No.8/2000 was pending concerning the present respondent. This being the position, the management was required to obtain the approval of the Labour Court and an application was filed by making a wrong reference to proceeding No.3/2000. It is pointed out by the respondent that no dispute is pending in Reference No.3/2000 concerning the respondent. 11. Under these circumstances, the application came to be disposed of as infructuous. Said order is not questioned by the management till the Labour Court passed an order under Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947 or no application is filed to seek approval by citing the correct dispute pending against the employee. 2 (2002)2 SCC 244 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner replying to the contentions raised based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., supra referred to the following judgments: 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sathya Prakash3 2. Sri J.H.Patel & Ors. Vs. Nuboard Manufacturing Co. Ltd and Ors..4 3. The Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Bijapur Division Vs. Hemaraddi5 4. Management of Karur vysya Bank Ltd., Vs. S Balakrishnan6 5. Managing Director, NEKRTC, Karnataka Vs. Shivasharanappa7 6. The Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC, Central Office Vs. Mohanlal Rathod8 7. C V Venkataramana Vs. K S R T C9 8. The Management of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Dood Badshah Bani10 3 2013(9) SCC 232 4 (2014) 11 SCC 371 5 W.A.No.50334/2013 6 (2016) 12 SCC 221 7 (2017) 16 SCC 540 8 MANU/KA/1765/2020 9 WA NO.541/2021 10 ILR 2007 Kar 1591 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 13. It is urged that the Supreme Court has taken a view that in case the order of dismissal is not questioned by the respondent/ employee, the omission on the part of the Management in not obtaining the approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 cannot invalidate the order of dismissal and order of dismissal has to be independently questioned by the respondent employee. Thus, he would contend that the petition be allowed and impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be given the liberty to revive the application seeking approval for dismissal of the employee. 14. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 15. It is noticed that the application seeking approval under Section 33(2)(b) was disposed of as infructuous on the premise that no dispute concerning workman was pending. May be, that order is erroneous. The petitioner did not file application seeking approval by mentioning the correct dispute number concerning the workman. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 16. Thereafter, the respondent employee filed an application under Section 33C(2) on the premise that there is no approval for dismissal. The petitioner participated in the said proceeding. The proceeding was pending since 2005 to 2014. The very basis of the respondent employee to initiate proceeding under Section 33C(2) was that the application seeking approval for dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) was dispose of as infructuous and there was no order approving the dismissal. 17. The petitioner had an option to question the said order in the year 2005 itself but the petitioner did not question the said order. The petitioner fully participated in the said proceeding under Section 33C(2). Thereafter the application filed under Section 33C(2) was allowed. 18. The petitioner thereafter in the year 2014 has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order under Section 33C(2) as well as the earlier order disposing the application under Section 33(2)(b). It is noticed that the application under Section 33(2)(b) was disposed of on 22.08.2005. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 19. It is submitted that the respondent-employee has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2012 and now he is aged 75 years. Considering the delay and attending circumstances, and keeping in mind the ratio in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., supra, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 20. In the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the parties to the proceedings approached the Court without any delay. Hence, those judgments do not come to the aid of the petitioner to get over the first hurdle of 10 years delay in filing the Writ Petition. 21. As far as the claim before the Labour Court under Section 33(C)(2) is concerned, it is noticed by the Labour Court that there is hardly any dispute relating to the wages claimed and asserted by the workman. No infirmity is pointed out in the order under Section 33(C)(2). It is also noticed that the monetary benefit claimed by the workman - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24463 WP No. 25957 of 2014 was based on terms and service conditions of employment which is capable of computation. 22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot seek the indulgence of the Court to entertain the Writ Petition filed after a lapse of 10 years. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41