- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8980-DB WA No. 622 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 622 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: MR C VEERABHADRAPPA, S/O MR. CHANDRAPPA , C/O TV SEETHARAM BUILDING, N.120, LGR EXTENSION, LAGGERE PEENYA POST, BANGALORE-560058. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N S, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S BATA INDIA LIMITED, PLOT NO. 474, 475 AND 476, 4TH PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058. REPRESENTED BY ITS FACTORY MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SYED KARHIFF, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/03/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8980-DB WA No. 622 of 2023 JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No. 43854/2011 (L-RES) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No.43854/2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein i.e., M/s Bata India Limited and set aside the order dated 12.04.2011 passed in Application No.17/2001 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, thereby rejecting the application filed by the respondent-Management under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking approval of the action of dismissal of the appellant herein. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8980-DB WA No. 622 of 2023 2. Sri. Narasimha Swamy.N.S, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, states that the appellant shall withdraw the writ petition and raise an industrial dispute before the appropriate authority against his dismissal from the service of the respondent to enable the authority decide the conciliation in accordance with law. 3. If that be so, it is made clear, while deciding the conciliation, the appropriate authority shall keep in mind that the proceedings were pending before this Court since 2011. It is also made clear, the parties shall proceed in accordance with law. All the contentions of the appellant, both on facts and in law, are left open to be canvassed before the authority(ies). The appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PA | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40