- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 46401 OF 2012 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 46408 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 46401/2012 BETWEEN: 1. NARASIMHA, S/O. NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A. D.NO. 2889/1, PAMPAPATHI ROAD, 1ST CROSS ROAD, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE - 570 001. 2. SHANKARAPPA, S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA, ANCHYA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RANGAHALLI POST, MYSORE. 3. M. SHIVANNA, S/O LATE. MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A: D.NO.159, LALITHADRIPURA, LALITHADRIPURA (PO), MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE. 4. M.K.JAYASHANKAR RAJE URS S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 R/A: NO.358, 8TH CROSS, LIND STAGE, HEBBAL, MYSORE. 5. GURU MALLAPPA C/O MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.505/B, K.N. AGRAHARA, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE - 560 024. 6. K.M. PUTTANNA C/O MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.505/B, K.N. AGRAHARA, K.R. MOHALLA, MYSORE - 560 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.C. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHARAJA, RESIDENTIAL MUSEUM, MYSORE PALACE, MYSORE - 570 001. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RECORDS FROM LABOUR COURT MYSORE IN I.I.D.NO.79/2002, 97/2002, 88/2002, 89/2002, 78/2002 AND 87/2002. QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE DT.17.10.2011 PASSED IN I.I.D.NO.79/2002, 97/2002, 88/2002, 89/2002, 79/2002 AND 87/2002 VIDE ANNX-A. IN WP NO. 46408/2012 BETWEEN: 1. H.N. GIRISHA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 S/O H.N.NANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/A: SURALLI ROAD, THOTADA MANE, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN. 2. K.NARAYANA, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SUB-JAIL QUARTERS, COURT ROAD, CHAMARAJANAGAR. 3. KRISHNA, S/O BETTAHAIH, KUMBAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, GUNDI CIRCLE, MAHADEVAPURA, SRIRANGAPATHNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. 4. H.N.THANDAVESWARA, S/O NANJEGOWDA, SURAHALLI ROAD, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, TOTADA MANE, HASSAN. 5. DEVARAJU C/O MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO. 505/B, K.N.AGRAHARA, K.R.MOHALLA. MYSORE-570024 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.S.C.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 THE MANAGEMENT OF MAHARAJA, RESIDENTIAL MUSEUM, MYSORE PALACE, MYSORE - 570 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NOS. 90/02,91/02,93/02, 94/02 AND 99/02 AND CONNECTED DISPUTES QUASH THE AWARD OF THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NOS. 90/02,91/02,93/02, 94/02 AND 99/02 VIDE ANNX-A. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed assailing the award dated 17.10.2011 in I.I.D. No.102/2002 and connected matters. In terms of the said award, the reference under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, is rejected. 2. The petitioners assailing the said award on the premise that the reason for retrenchment by the respondent management, in its notice is not substantiated - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 before the Labour Court. In Labour Court, heard and accepted the said reasons without any proof relating to the alleged financial difficulties pleaded by the management. Thus would contend that the award has to be set aside and the petitioners are to be reinstated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the respondent management does not come under the definition of establishment under the Industrial Dispute Act. However, the contention relating to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a reference on the premise that the respondent is not an establishment under the Industrial Dispute Act, has been rejected and the same has not been questioned by the management. 4. However, learned counsel would contend that the notice issued by the respondent itself is clear that the respondent is not in a position to run the museum, and since the management deemed it appropriate to downsize the workforce, notice was issued and last month's salary - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 was paid as retrenchment compensation by applying the formula under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and the workers have accepted the compensation without any protest and thereafter, they have raised a dispute. Thus, he would contend that the dispute is not maintainable having accepted the retrenchment compensation, the petitioners are estopped from raising the contention that there was no financial constraints. 5. It is also his further contention that the alleged evidence relating to victimization of the petitioners is not accepted by the Tribunal for assigning valid reasons as such, the impugned award has to be upheld. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. There is no dispute that petitioners were working under the respondent. It is further not in dispute that notices have been sent by the respondent under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. In the said - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 notice, the respondent has taken a contention that the respondent is not in a position to run the museum as it was running under loss, as such the retrenchment compensation was offered and the petitioners were retrenched from the service. The records would also disclose that the petitioners have accepted the cheque offered by the respondent, same has been encashed. The cheques have been accepted without any protest. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that except the oral evidence of the witness on behalf of respondent, there is nothing on record to show that the respondent museum was running under loss and the retrenchment is a case of victimization where they wanted to remove certain employees who joined another union as against the wish of the respondent. 9. This Court has considered the said contention in the light of the finding given by the Labour Court. The Labour Court on appreciation of evidence has noticed that the alleged victimization is not established. It is the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 finding of the Labour Court that the seniority list was published and the workers have been retrenched by taking into consideration the date of joining of the workmen. The respondent has applied ‘last come first go’ principle. There was no objection to the seniority list and no materials are placed before the Labour Court to show that the petitioners are senior to those persons who are retained by the establishment. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Parry and Company Limited Vs. P.C Pal Judge of the Second Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta and Others1, has laid down the test for considering the case under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Apex Court has held that if the decision of the management is found to be a bona fide decision, then that decision has to be accepted and the Labour Court should not dwell into the question as to whether the decision is appropriate or some other viable options wherever before the management. 1 AIR 1970 SC 1334 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6945 WP No. 46401 of 2012 C/W WP No. 46408 of 2012 11. Having considered the said ratio, this Court is of the view that the decision taken by the respondent appears to be a bonafide decision and malafide as alleged by the petitioners are not established. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. 12. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed, as the same is based on the materials available on record. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31