THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD v. THE LABOUR OFFICER
WP/105144/2025 · 2025-09-18
Suraj Govindaraj
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 66071 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 66071 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12456 WP No. 105144 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. 105144 OF 2025 (L-PG) BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD., UNIT: HARIHAR POLY FIBERS AND GRASILENE DIVISION, KUMARAPATTANAM-581123, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LEGAL MR. VIJAYAKUMAR ANGADI. …PETITIONER (BY SRIYUTHS. Z.N. HANSI, P.P. HITTALAMANI AND A.P. BANAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
THE LABOUR OFFICER (GADAG) AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRAUITY ACT, 1972, SITTING ON DEPUTATION AT DC OFFICE, HAVERI, HAVERI ROAD, DEVAGIRI, DISTRICT HAVERI - 581110.
2.
CHOLAPPA KARIYAPP GOUDAR AGE. MAJOR, OCC.NIL, R/O. KAVALETTU, TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581123.
3.
M/S S AND M CO. KUMARAPATTANAM, RANEBENNUR, NOW PRESENT ADDRESS M/S. SURESH MALPANI AND COM, INDUSTRY HOUSE, NO.45, RACE COURSE ROAD,
Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12456 WP No. 105144 of 2025
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. ANIL MALPANI. …RESPONDENTS
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) 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 KAA HA/UPAAKA/CR/-202/2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DISMISSING THE CLAIM OR ANY OTHER RELIEF ORDERED AND AWARDABLE TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 CLAIMANT. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 12-12-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, AT HAVERI, IN KAA HA/UPAAKA/CR/-202/2016-17. 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. (C) PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12456 WP No. 105144 of 2025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
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.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12456 WP No. 105144 of 2025
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 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:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0