- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 34209 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI ANI PRASHANTH B. N, S/O SHRI NARASIMHAIAH L, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHINCHANA NILAYA, 10TH 'A' CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, SSIT TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572102. …PETITIONER (MISS AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TRIVENI AERONAUTICS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.126, ANTHRASANAHALLI, 2ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, TUMKUR - 572106, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HR A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTHOSH NARAYAN S, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD 23.02.2023 ON IA NO. IV OF THE LEARNED PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN ID 10/2019 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-J) BY DIRECTING MATTER TO BE POSTED FOR EVIDENCE ON ALL ISSUES AND NOT ADDL. ISSUE ONLY AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the orders dated 23.02.2023 on I.A.No.4 and order dated 18.03.2024 passed on I.A.No.5 passed by the learned District Judge, Tumakuru in I.D.No.10/2019. In terms of the order dated 23.02.2023, I.A.No.4 is allowed framing an additional issue. I.A.No.5 is rejected wherein the petitioner sought direction against the respondent to produce certain documents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after framing additional issue on the application at I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent, the Labour Court directed the matter to be listed for recording evidence only on the additional issue instead of further issues already framed. Hence, it is contended that such an approach by the Labour Court is erroneous. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 3. It is also submitted that the petitioner was a workman under the respondent and later his designation was changed as Supervisor and despite change of designation, the petitioner continued to do the work of a workman as directed by the employer. To establish this contention, petitioner moved an application to summon the records which were in the custody of the respondent. 4. The respondent - Company filed objection to the said application contending that the documents are not necessary for adjudication of the controversy and without appreciating the real question, the Labour Court erroneously dismissed the application for summoning the records. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition has to be allowed and consequently I.A.No.5 has to be allowed and the respondent has to be directed to summon the records mentioned in the said application and the evidence has to be led on all issues including the additional issue. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would contend that though the case was ordered to be listed for recording evidence on the additional issue (after framing the additional issue), the petitioner has led evidence on all the issues and as such the order has to be understood in the said context that the Labour Court has permitted the parties to lead evidence on all issues and not just on additional issue. 6. It is further submitted that the Writ Petition is filed seven months after the dismissal of the application for summoning the records and in the meantime, the respondent has destroyed the records as those records were not required to be maintained. Thus, he would submit that the respondent is not in a position to produce the records even if the petition is allowed. 7. In addition to that, learned counsel has also produced the minutes of the meeting dated 09.09.2024 and also the certificate dated 22.11.2024 evidencing the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 destruction of records and would submit that the petition in so far as assailing order on I.A.No.5 is not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would contend that the respondent is also having the burden to establish the contention that the petitioner was working as Supervisor and not as the workman and it has to established by producing documents and the burden is on the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent would place on record evidence to show that after the petitioner was designated as Supervisor, work of Supervisor was extracted from the petitioner. 10. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record. 11. On perusal of the impugned orders and records, it is noticed that though the Labour Court has listed the matter for recording evidence on additional issue, from the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024 petitioner has led evidence on all issues and learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for adducing the evidence on all issues. 12. Under these circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the order passed on I.A.No.4 which was filed to frame an additional issue. 13. As far as I.A.No.5 is concerned, since it is submitted that the documents are destroyed post dismissal of the application at I.A.No.5. This Court cannot interfere in the order on I.A.No.5. However, it is made clear that the respondent is also required to establish that the petitioner after being designated as Supervisor was made to work as Supervisor and not as workman. 14. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13