- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12432 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SANTOSH SHETTY, S/O DATTATRAYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 1-6, BINMAGALA, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MADHUKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), YESHWANTHPURA INDL. SUB 2ND STAGE GORGUNTEPALYA, TUMKUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560022. 2. AIRCRAFT RESEARCH AND DESIGN CENTRE (ARDC), DESIGN COMPLEX, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560037, REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS NAYANA TARA B.G, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI PRADYUMNA K V, ADVOCATE FOR SMT SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 01.01.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE R1 IN DISPUTE NO.8 (19) 2023-B-2.CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO LABOUR COURT FOR ADJUDICATION. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.01.2004 at Annexure-A. In terms of the said order the petitioner's request to refer the dispute for adjudication is rejected. The Authority which issued Annexure-A rejecting the petitioner's request to refer the dispute for adjudication has referred to the order passed by this Court in earlier round of Writ Petition No.5849/2018 dated 18.04.2023 and the Writ Appeal No.733/2023 dated 27.07.2023 as well as judgment dated 08.12.2023 in Special Leave Petition No.42149/2023. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has raised preliminary objection on the premise that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner's contentions raised in the present Writ Petition has been rejected in the earlier round of Writ Petition No.5849/2018. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 3. This Court had directed the petitioner to produce the copy of the Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.5849/2018, learned counsel for the petitioner has made available copy of the said Writ Petition. 4. As can be noticed from the prayer in the said Writ Petition, petitioner has questioned two orders in the said petition. One is the order dated 04.10.2017 dismissing the petitioner pursuant to the domestic enquiry. And subsequent order is the order of confirmation passed by the Appellate Authority. 5. The petitioner has questioned the aforementioned two orders in W.P.No.5849/2018. This Court has dismissed the petition. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.5849/2018 is confirmed by the Division Bench in the Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner. Later Special Leave Petition is dismissed. 6. After the disposal of the aforementioned Writ Petition, Writ Appeal as well as Special Leave Petition, the petitioner filed an application, requesting respondent No.1 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 refer the dispute for adjudication. As already noticed, respondent No.1 has refused to refer the dispute for adjudication on the premise that the dispute is already adjudicated. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while deciding the Writ Petition, this Court has not considered the contentions relating to the victimization and the petition is dismissed on the sole ground that this Court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the penalty imposed. Thus, it is his submission that the application to refer the dispute relating to the victimization is maintainable and respondent No.1 erred in not referring the dispute for adjudication to answer the question relating to victimization. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that all the contentions were raised before this Court in earlier Writ Petition and the Court has taken a view that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and declined to interfere in the penalty imposed. Later, the order came to be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and Special Leave Petition to challenge the said orders is not entertained. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would also urge that the petitioner cannot raise a grievance that his contention relating to victimization was not considered and decided earlier. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. It is noticed that in the earlier round of Writ Petition in ground No.21, the petitioner has raised a contention that the order of dismissal passed is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 12. In ground No.20, the petitioner has also raised a contention that the dismissal order is unlawful. In addition to that he has also raised a contention that there was no ground for imposing penalty of dismissal. 13. This Court has concluded in the earlier round of Writ Petition that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 the Court has also stated that there is no ground to interfere in the penalty imposed. 14. This Court is of the view that ground No.21 in the earlier round of Writ Petition deals with victimization. Hence, if the said ground is not considered in the earlier round of the Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot raise a contention by asking appropriate government to refer the dispute for adjudication on the ground which is said to have been not considered by this Court in earlier round of Writ Petition as it amounts to deemed rejection. 15. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by non- consideration of any of the grounds or non-adjudication of any of his contentions, the remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal which has already been done and appeal is also dismissed and Special leave sought to challenge the said order is also declined. 16. Assuming that the ground relating to the victimization is not urged in earlier round of Writ Petition, then again the petitioner cannot seek to raise a ground in a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25725 WP No. 12432 of 2024 subsequent proceeding as no such leave is raised under Order II Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to raise such ground relating to victimization while filing the earlier Writ Petition. 17. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order at Annexure-A wherein respondent No.1 has declined to refer the dispute on the premise that the dispute is already adjudicated 18. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102