- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49909-DB WA No. 1355 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1355 OF 2024 (L-TER) BETWEEN: ITI LIMITED A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING FORMERLY THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN TELEPHONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT DOORAVANINAGAR BANGALORE- 560 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER-HR MR SAJAN ABRAHM EMAIL DRHR@ITILTD.CO.IN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RICAB CHAND K., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI.G.T DHARMASHANKARA RAJU S/O H G TRIPURANTHAKA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT YEARS R/A KAIPATE GUBBI- 572 216 TUMKUR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B D KUTTAPPA., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49909-DB WA No. 1355 of 2024 SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 13/02/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN WP NO.50106/2012., AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13th February 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.50106/2012(L-TER), preferred by the Management of Indian Telephone Industries Limited, questioning the award dated 30th January 2010 passed by the Ist Additional Labour Court at Bangalore in ID No.376/2006. 2. The Labor Court set aside the order of the management imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent-workman dated 18th September 2003. The Labour Court allowed the industrial dispute and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49909-DB WA No. 1355 of 2024 ordered reinstatement with full back wages. The learned Single Judge has not interfered with the order of reinstatement, but the back wages have been tampered with or reduced to 75% instead of 100%. 3. This appeal has been filed with an extraordinary delay of 519 days without sufficient reasons for condoning such an enormous delay. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. Even otherwise, there is nothing on merit to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12