- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 13829 OF 2023 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SHRI KANTHARAJU, S/O LATE GIRIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1829, CH-11A, 8TH CROSS, ASHOK PURAM, MYSURU - 570008. …PETITIONER (BY SRI L MURALIDHAR PESHWA, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S SYS INFORMATION HEALTH CARE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED (A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANY S ACT, 1956), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR KOWSALYA, NO.2254, 2ND FLOOR, VINOBA ROAD, MYSURU - 570005. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTHOSH NARAYAN S, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD 17.02.2020 IN REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2019, AS PER ANNEXURE-AB, PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW, PERVERSE AND MANIFESTLY ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT POWER AND JURISDICTIONS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.02.2020 in Ref.No.11/2019 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysuru. 2. In the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner challenging the order of termination dated 16.06.2017, the respondent/Management took a stand that the petition is not maintainable as the respondent/Management is exempted from application of Industrial Disputes Act. The contention raised by the respondent/Management is accepted and the Labour Court has held that application is not maintainable in view of the Notification dated 25.05.2019 issued by the Labour Department. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Notification dated 25.05.2019 is wrongly understood and interpreted by the Labour Court. It is his contention that the Notification exempts the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 for a period of 5 years from 25.05.2019. It is his contention that exemption is granted only in respect of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and not other Act. He would further contend that the dispute raised by the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 relating to the termination is governed by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no exemption is granted to the respondent/Management from the application of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, he would contend that the order is to be set-aside and the matter has to be remanded to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that in the first instance, the petitioner approached the Labour Court as the dispute was referred to the Labour Court as the Conciliation failed. The Labour Court referring to the Notification dated 25.01.2014 took a view that it has no jurisdiction. The Labour Court is of the view that the notification exempts the Information Technology Companies from the purview of the Industrial Disputes (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and all other Acts applicable to the industries. And the matter was referred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. Petitioner approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner pursuant to the direction issued by the Labour Court. The Deputy Labour Commissioner again held that the dispute is to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court and referred the matter to the Labour Court. Labour Court again accepting the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 contentions raised by the respondent which took a view that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute and directed the party to again approach the Deputy Labour Commissioner by referring to Clause 3 of the Notification dated 25.01.2014. 5. The Deputy Labour Commissioner once again took a view that the dispute is to be adjudicated by the competent Labour Court and referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the respondent once again took a contention that it has no jurisdiction by referring the Notification dated 25.01.2014 and the said contention is once again accepted by the Labour Court and the matter is again referred to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would bring to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has accepted the first order passed by the Labour Court which has remitted the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner for adjudication. He would also bring to the notice of this Court that application for amendment is filed to challenge the earlier order and the same was withdrawn. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that principle of resjudicata would apply to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 case and the petitioner having accepted the earlier order of the Labour Court which said it has no jurisdiction, is precluded from questioning the second order which also said it has no jurisdiction. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 8. It is relevant to note that when the matter was first before the Labour Court, the respondent took a contention that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction by referring to the Notification dated 25.01.2014. The said Notification exempts the operation of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 insofar as the I.T. industries are concerned. It does not exempt the operation of other Acts such as Industrial Disputes Act insofar as the Information Technology industries are concerned. Thus, the order of the Labour Court holding that it has no jurisdiction is erroneous. 9. But what is relevant to note is the Labour Court has referred the matter to the Deputy Labour Commissioner who again took a view that the dispute is covered under the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 Industrial Disputes Act and referred the matter back to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court once again took a view that it has no jurisdiction. Since the Labour Court on earlier occasion held that it has no jurisdiction, thereafter, did not close the case and referred the dispute to the Deputy Labour Commissioner. The Deputy Labour Commissioner once again sent the matter back to the Labour Court and thereafter, there is one more adjudication and this adjudication is based on the second reference. 10. The findings of the Labour Court on the second reference is questioned before this Court and this Court after having gone through the Notification dated 25.01.2014 is of the view that the dispute has to be adjudicated by the Labour Court as the Notification does not cease the operation of the Industrial Disputes Act insofar as the employees of the Information Technology Industries. Thus the petitioner has to agitate the dispute before the Labour Court. 11. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide the lis is not lost. The dispute between the parties is not adjudicated at all. If then was adjudication of the lis one can say that issue - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 operates as resjudicata. Thus, it cannot be said that principle of resjudicata would apply. Hence, the petition has to be allowed. A direction has to be issued to the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute in accordance with law. 12. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2020 in Ref.No.11/2019 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru is set-aside. (ii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. (iii) The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 25.03.2025 without awaiting for any further notice from the Labour Court. (iv) It is made clear that nothing is expressed anything on the merits of the case. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8418 WP No. 13829 of 2023 (v) All contentions except the plea of resjudicata are kept open. (vi) It is noticed that the dispute is pending since 2017 and the Labour Court on two occasions has erroneously held that it has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the Labour Court shall expedite the disposal of the case. (vii) The parties shall co-operate for early disposal Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32