THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE LABOUR OFFICER (GADAG) AND
WP/105558/2025 · 2025-09-18
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 62082 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 62082 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12558 WP No. 105558 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 105558 OF 2025 (L-PG)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., UNIT: HARIHAR POLY FIBERS AND GRASILENE DIVISION, KUMARAPATTANAM-581 123, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LEGAL MR. VIJAYKUMAR ANGADI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Z.N. HANSI, SRI. P.P. HITTALAMANI & SRI. A.P. BANKARPUR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE LABOUR OFFICER (GADAG) AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972, SITTING ON DEPUTATION AT DC OFFICE, HAVERI, HAVERI ROAD, DEVAGIRI, DISTRICT: HAVERI-581110. 2. KUTRAPPAGOUDA S/O. HALAPPAGOUDA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O. VADEYARHALLI, TQ: RENEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 123. Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12558 WP No. 105558 of 2025
3. M/S S AND M CO.KUMARAPATTANAM, RANEBENNUR, NOW PRESENT ADDRESS M/S. SURESH MALPANI AND CO. CONTRACTOR, INDUSTRY HOUSE, NO.45, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. ANIL MALPANI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, AGA FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 & R3 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AT HAVERI, IN KAAA HA/UPAAKA/CR/-116/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DISMISSING THE CLAIM OR ANY OTHER RELIEF ORDERED AND AWARDABLE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CLAIMANT; ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, AT HAVERI, IN KAAA HA/UPAAKA/CR/- 116/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY ASCERTAINING THE PRESENCE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CONTRACTORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS MAKING THEM ACCOUNTABLE REMANDING THE MATTER WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITIONER FARE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12558 WP No. 105558 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1.
The present petition challenges only the interlocutory order condoning the delay in filing the claim by the concerned workmen. It is noted that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under sub- section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the appropriate Government against any such order. 2. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Government by filing an appropriate application, the petition stands disposed of. The petitioner is granted a period of three weeks to make such an application. 3. The appropriate Government is directed to consider and pass necessary orders on the said application within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12558 WP No. 105558 of 2025
application. While doing so, the appropriate Government shall also take into consideration the petitioner’s grievance that the contractors, who allegedly possess the relevant documents, have not been made parties to the proceedings, and shall take appropriate steps in that regard. 4. It is further clarified that, as the challenge in the present petition is only to the interlocutory order condoning the delay, and since no final liability has been determined or crystallized, there is no requirement at this stage for the petitioner to deposit any amount. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE
VB CT-MCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0