- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 28810 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S LAXMI ELECTRONIC MOULDS AND PRECISION ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED PRIVATE LIMITED. PLOT NO. 81, EPIP AREA, WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. DHANASHEKAR S. INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE EAST INDUSTRIAL WORKERS UNION CITU OFFICE, SOORI BHAVAN, UDAYA NAGAR, DHOORAVANINAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560016. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENT (BY MS.AVANI CHOKSHI FOR M/S.SAMATA LAW.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO A)QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 04.09.2025 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.162/2024 VIDE ANNEUXURE-L AND ALSO TO DIRECT THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, TO FRAME THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER IN ITS COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 17.05.2025 AND ADJUDICATE THE DISPUTE COMPREHENSIVELY ON ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW RAISED BY THE PARTIES ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - management, which is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. The petitioner, at its Whitefield factory, is engaged in the manufacture of plastic injection moulded parts and rubber parts for commercial aircrafts and engineering industries. It also operates another factory at Plot No. 2, Industrial Estate, Dyavasandra, Bangalore, where it is engaged in the manufacture of steel tools and moulds. 2. It is the case of petitioner that at its Whitefield factory, it had engaged on average around 120 employees, consisting of approximately 25 staff, 37 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 permanent workmen and 58 contract workmen. However, due to the rapid spread of COVID-19 from March 2020 onwards, the petitioner-company suffered severe unprecedented financial setbacks. As commercial aviation was severely impacted, the usage of commercial aircrafts came down drastically, resulting in mass cancellation of orders by major aircraft manufacturers until 2022. Thus, during this period of COVID, there was a loss of revenue. However, due to the sharp and continuing decline in demand, the petitioner's monthly revenue dropped drastically. In order to cope up with financial crisis, petitioner initially disengaged all contract workmen and attempted to continue paying wages and salaries to the remaining employees. Despite these measures, due to non-availability of work, the petitioner was constrained to request its employees not to report for duty with effect from 03.09.2020. 2.1 The respondent- Union thereafter submitted a petition dated 08.09.2020 before the Labour and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 Conciliation Officer, Bangalore Sub-Division- 3 seeking intervention and requesting the authority to direct petitioner to provide work to its members. The said petition was registered as LOB-3/PTN/CR-24/2020-21. Based on the said petition, the Labour & Conciliation Officer issued notice dated 08.09.2020, directing both parties to appear for a joint meeting scheduled on 22.09.2020. 2.2 This being the state of affairs, as business situation continued to deteriorate with no signs of recovery, petitioner took a considered decision to retrench around 37 workmen from its Whitefield field Unit in a strict compliance with the procedure enumerated under Chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, petitioner got issued retrenchment notice dated 10.09.2020 to the Appropriate Government under Section 25(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 2.3 The petitioner also issued individual retrenchment letters dated 10.9.2020 to all the 37 affected workmen, informing them about their retrenchment and also simultaneously paid them retrenchment compensation in full compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner further assured the workmen that in the event of revival of its business operations, they would be given preference for re-employment. 2.4 While the proceedings in LOB-3/PTN/CR- 24/2020-21 were pending, the respondent-Union filed another petition on 16.09.2020, challenging the retrenchment effected on 10.09.2020 requesting the Conciliation Officer to direct the petitioner to withdraw the retrenchment. The said petition was registered as LOB- 3/PTN/CR-34/2020-21. The petitioner appeared in the said proceeding and explained the severe financial hardship, drastic reduction in orders and non-availability of work, which necessitated the retrenchment of the workmen and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 also at the same time reiterated its willingness to re- employ the workmen if the business revived. 2.5 This being the situation, both the conciliation proceedings i.e., LOB-3/PTN/CR-24/2020-21 and LOB- 3/PTN/CR-34/2020-21 ended in failure and as required under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Conciliation Officer submitted failure reports to the Appropriate Government in respect of each of the said proceedings. 2.6 Thereafter, pursuant to the failure report submitted in LOB-3/PTN/CR-24/2020-21, the Appropriate Government, vide its order of reference dated 06.04.2021, referred the dispute to the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru for adjudication, which came to be registered as Ref. No.11/2021. The Appropriate Government vide its order of reference dated 20.04.2021 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, which came to be registered as ID No. 55/2021. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 2.7 It is further case of the petitioner that the Government while framing the order of reference dated 06.04.2021, ventured into the merits of the dispute instead of leaving it to the Labour Court to adjudicate in accordance with law. The order of reference presupposed that the petitioner had shifted its production activities from one Unit to another and outsourced production activities to retrench the workmen represented by the respondent- Union and hence the same was without any basis. Therefore, the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of reference approached this Court in W.P. No. 9635/21. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to raise an issue in respect of the same and directed the Court to consider the same in accordance with law. 2.8 This being the state of affairs, on 30.11.2022, the petitioner - Management filed a memo for framing of additional issues before the 2nd Additional Labour Court, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 Bengaluru, in Ref.No. 11/2021 and the Labour Court framed the additional issues as sought by the petitioner. 2.9 During the pendency of these proceedings in Reference No.11/2021 before the 2nd Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, the respondent - Union submitted representation before the Government of Karnataka and based on the said representation, the Government, vide its Order dated 02.09.2024, withdrew both the earlier orders of reference and re-referred the entire subject matter of dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The same came to be registered as ID No. 162/2024. 2.10 While re-referring the said matter, the Government once again concluded without any factual or legal basis that the petitioner had shifted the regular production activities of Unit No.3 to Unit No.2 and also outsourced production activities of Unit No.3 to outside agencies, which is again presupposing that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 retrenchment of the workmen represented by the respondent-Union was affected for such reasons. 2.11 The respondent - Union filed its claim statement before the learned Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 162/2024 on 29.11.2024, in which the petitioner appeared and filed its detailed counter-statement on 17.05.2025, specifically seeking the framing of additional issues, which are essential for comprehensive and fair adjudication of the dispute. 2.12 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Industrial Tribunal, by an order dated 04.09.2025, rejected the petitioner's prayer for framing of additional issues and posted the matter for evidence solely on the points referred by the Government in its corrigendum dated 02.09.2024. 2.13 Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 order and also to direct the Industrial Tribunal to frame the additional issues sought by petitioner in its counter- statement and adjudicate the dispute comprehensively on all questions of fact and law raised by parties. 3. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel Sri Prashanth.B.K. appearing for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is contrary to law and facts of the case. The Industrial Tribunal has passed the order without application of judicious mind and the order suffers from serious legal infirmities. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government while making the order of reference, ventured into merits of the dispute instead of leaving it to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the disputed question of facts based on the evidence of the parties. Therefore, the same is illegal and arbitrary. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 4.1 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd., Madras Vs. The Workers and Staff employed under it and others, reported in AIR 1963 SC 569. 4.2 It is also the vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. No.9635/2021, wherein this Court by an order dated 25.8.2021 granted liberty to the petitioner to raise its objections regarding the validity and scope of reference before the 2nd Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the framing of additional issues was crucial to give effect to the liberty so granted by this Court. Hence he craves leave of this Court to allow his petition. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent vehemently contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Tribunal and she sustains the impugned order contending that the issues so sought to be framed are not required for deciding the subject matter before the Labour Court. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for parties; perused the records and so also the additional issues pleaded by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal. One of the most important aspect in deciding a case is framing appropriate relevant issue. The framing of issues in my opinion does not prejudice the case of the respondent - Union. Therefore for proper adjudication and decision of the matter, it would be proper and necessary to frame the following additional issues which are pleaded by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal. i) Whether the First Party proves that the Second Party has transferred the production activities of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 Unit No.3 to Unit No.2 at No. P2, ITI Industrial Area, Opp. Canara Bank, Whitefield, Bangalore besides outsourcing the production activities of Unit No.3 to outside agencies in order to terminate Sri Lokesh S.C. and other 36 workmen? ii) Whether the Second Party proves that it has neither transferred the production activities of Unit No.3 to Unit No.2 at No. P2, ITI Industrial Area, Opp. Canara Bank, Whitefield, Bangalore nor outsourced the production activities of Unit No.3 to outside agencies in order to terminate Sri Lokesh S.C. and other 36 workmen? 7. It is needless to mention that it is for the Industrial Tribunal to go into the merits of the matter and deal with the same in accordance with the reference made by the Appropriate Government. It is the Tribunal which will have to adjudicate the matter on the basis of the issues framed and the evidence adduced by the parties before it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any legal impediment to frame the additional issues which are sought to be framed by the petitioner and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 by such act, no hardship, inconvenience or adverse impact would be caused to the respondent. 8. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the additional issues need to be framed and the Tribunal would have to proceed further with the said issues, in accordance with law. Accordingly, I pass the following order. O R D E R 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The impugned order dated 4.9.2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D. No. 162/2024 is hereby set aside and quashed so far as it relates to rejection of framing of additional issues. 3. Consequently, the additional issues sought to be framed by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case would be relevant to decide the reference. Accordingly, additional - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38167 WP No. 28810 of 2025 issues shall be framed by the Industrial Tribunal and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE RCK/GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17