- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34015 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: MR G SUNDARARAJAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.144, MUNISWAR NAGAR NEW ASTC HUDCO, HOSUR-635109 TAMIL NADU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R MURALIDHARAN .,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S VECTRA ADVANCED ENGINEERING PVT LTD. VECTRA HOUSE, NO.15, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 096. REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MR. ASHOK KUMAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. J. KANIKARAJ.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.01.2014 IN I.D.44/2012 VIDE ANNX-A ON FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, AND CONSEQUENTLY AWARD AND DECLARE a) SINCE THE PETITIONER IS WORKMAN WHO WAS ILLEGALLY TERMINATED, THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED FOR REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES IN THE SISTER COMPANIES OF THE RESPONDENT. b) ALTERNATIVELY AWARD THE TOTAL COMPENSATION RS.9,07,452 (NINE LAKH SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY TWO). IN LIEU RELINGUISHING THE RIGHT TO RE-EMPLOYMENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has succeeded in his application under Section 10[4A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ‘the ID Act'] in ID No.44/2012 on the file of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, the Labour Court], is pursuing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 his alleged grievance against his employer’s action in the present petition. The petitioner has filed his application under Section 10[4A] of the ID Act for a declaration that he is a workman within the meaning of the ID Act and that his dismissal [and without payment of Closure Compensation] is illegal. The petitioner, while seeking reinstatement with back wages, has sought for payment of Closure Compensation and ex gratia compensation. In addition, the petitioner has sought for declaration that payment of reduced bonus to the petitioner and withholding annual increment is unlawful. 2. The respondent has contested the application denying, amongst others, that the petitioner is a workman. The Labour Court has framed Issues that is required to examine whether the petitioner is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and whether the respondent has illegally terminated him from service with effect from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 04.07.2012. The Tribunal has answered both the issues in favour of the petitioner and granted the relief. 3. Sri R. Muralidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that once the Labour Court found that the petitioner is a workman and that he is entitled for Closure Compensation on par with the other workmen, it should have allowed his claim for payment of difference in bonus. The learned counsel, relying upon Paragraph-3 of the application with the Labour Court, submits that the petitioner is only paid 8.33% p.a. as bonus, while the other workmen have been paid 20% as bonus for the most part of their employment. This paragraph No.3 reads as under: "The petitioner submits that all workmen with the respondent were given 20% bonus for most of the period of employment. The petitioner was given only 8.33% per annum i.e., minimum bonus. This is a discriminatory and unfair labour practice." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 4. Sri Ravishankar, the learned counsel for the respondent, without disputing that the Labour Court has not examined whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of bonus as set out in the application, submits that the petitioner's claim for bonus which is not consequential to termination or dismissal or discharge or retrenchment or termination, or even otherwise related to any of these acts, is not an industrial dispute as is contemplated under Section 10[4A] read with Section 2A of the ID Act and if it is not such dispute, the merits of such claim cannot be considered in an application under Section 10[4A] of the ID Act as amended in the State of Karnataka. 5. Sri Ravishankar canvasses that any claim for bonus would be within the Schedule III to the ID Act and therefore could be a matter of Reference under Section 10 of the ID Act but cannot be part of the claim in an application under Section 10(4A). The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 learned counsel is also supported by the other members of the Bar in inviting this Court's attention to the provisions of Section 22 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, to underscore that any dispute between an employer and his employees regarding bonus payable is deemed to be an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of the ID Act for the purposes of a reference under Section 10 thereof. 6. At the outset, this Court must observe that the question that arises for consideration must be considered in the backdrop of the undisputed fact that the petitioner's claim for bonus at 20% is not related to his dismissal from service. Further, this Court must observe that the petitioner will indeed have recourse more on adjudication on whether he is entitled to bonus at 20% if others are so payable as an Industrial Dispute provided there is a Reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner's grievance - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 about not being paid bonus at 20% could be part of his application under Section 10[4A] of the ID Act. 7. The Section 10[4A] of the ID Act as amended is categorical that a concerned workman may apply, within six months from the communication of the order of discharge or dismissal or retrenchment or termination, with the concerned Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and these provisions stipulate that the dispute must fall within the scope of Section 2A, which reads as under: "2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute - (1]1 Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches, or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding 1 The next sub sections deal with the timeline within which the concerned workman shall file the application and the manner in which the application must be dealt with. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15550 WP No. 34015 of 2014 that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute." The underlining is by this Court 8. This Court has no hesitation in holding that an application under section 10[4A] of the ID Act can be filed for adjudication of all disputes or difference which is connected with or arising out of discharge or dismissal or retrenchment or termination but if it is not so connected, the dispute would be outside the forum. The Labour Court indeed has not considered this aspect but given the scope of jurisdiction as discussed above, this Court is not inclined to interfere, and hence the petition stands rejected but without prejudice to the petitioner's remedies as would be available in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV