- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 9611 OF 2025 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 13917 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13918 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13923 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13928 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13929 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13931 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13941 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13975 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13976 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13979 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13980 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13983 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13984 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13988 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13990 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13994 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13995 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 13998 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 14001 OF 2025 (L-RES) IN WP No. 9611/2025 BETWEEN: MR ANANDA L, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LAKKAHNA, JADENAHALLI, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA - 562159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. …RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.383/2024 (OLD NO.139/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13917/2025 BETWEEN: MR PRATEEPA B.R, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O RAJEGOWDA, BENNAHATTI VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.385/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.141/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13918/2025 BETWEEN: ANANTHA V, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, LAXMIPURA, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 561201. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 403/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.25/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS IN WP NO. 13923/2025 BETWEEN: MR. JEEVANKUMAR S, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE SOMACHARI, NO.227, ARKESHWARA NAGAR, KANTENAHALLI EXTENSION, KRISHNARAJANAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.392/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.03/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A ANC ETC. IN WP NO. 13928/2025 BETWEEN: MR.MAHANTGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, C/O LAKKANNA, JADENAHALLI, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS RAMANAGAR TQ AND DISTRICT - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.387/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.143/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A. IN WP NO. 13929/2025 BETWEEN: MR.KAGGALAIAH B, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O BYATAHOMBAIAH, THIMMAPPANA PALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI,RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 388/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.144/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13931/2025 BETWEEN: RAVICHANDRA M, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O MAHADEVAIAH, BANNIKUPPE, GANKAL POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/ SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 404/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.28/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13941/2025 BETWEEN: SUJITH S, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O BYATAHOMBAIAH, THIMAPPANAPALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.398/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.16/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX- A AND ETC. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS IN WP NO. 13975/2025 BETWEEN: MR. KRISHNAMURTHY K, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O KALA ERAIAH, NAGARA KALDODI VILLAGE, DODDAGANGAVADI POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DIST. PIN CODE - 571511. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.399/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.4/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13976/2025 BETWEEN: MR SHIVAKUMAR C, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O CHANNAPPA, THIMMAPPANA PALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TQ AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.391/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.02/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13979/2025 BETWEEN: JIBY JOHN JACOB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O BYATAHOMBAIAH, THIMAPPANAPALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 399/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.17/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13980/2025 BETWEEN: MR.MUDDANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O MUNILAKSHMAMMA, W/O LATE RANGAWAMAIAH, NO.60, JADENAHALLI, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT - ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 384/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.140/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13983/2025 BETWEEN: BYRAPPA B.H, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O HANUEGOWDA V B NO 05, BILIJAJI GRAMA, AGRAHARA ROAD, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560088. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 402/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.24/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13984/2025 BETWEEN: GOPA KUMAR G, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O BYATAHOMBAIAH, THIMAPPANAPALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.397/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.15/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A. IN WP NO. 13988/2025 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS BETWEEN: MR. SHIVAKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O KATTEBOREGOWDA, C M KOPPALU, KIRUGAVALU HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.386/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.142/2018) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13990/2025 BETWEEN: MR.RAVIKUMAR H N, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, C/O RUDREGOWDA, NO.40, 1ST CROSS, KULLEGOWDA ESTATE, VRUSHABHAVATHI NAGAR, KAMAKSHIPALAYA BANGALORE. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.390/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.01/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13994/2025 BETWEEN: LOKESH S.C, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O CHANDRASHEKAR.S.M, NO.147, 4TH CROSS, SRI RANGANAGAR, NEAR VEERA BHADRA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560085. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.394/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.05/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A. IN WP NO. 13995/2025 BETWEEN: MR.THOPEGOWDA P D, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O NARASIMHAIAH, RANGANATHA PROVISION STORE NO.15, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, SANJEEVININAGARA, HEGGANA HALLI, OPP. NEW CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL, BENGALURU - 560091. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.401/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.22/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 13998/2025 BETWEEN: KANTHARAJU C, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, C/O CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH, ULLIGAPPA BUILDING NEAR OLD ANGANAWADI, JUTTANAPALYA HEJJALA POST, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND TALUK PIN - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD, 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-ADMINISTRATION MR.SIVADAS.M, REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO. 400/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.21/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. IN WP NO. 14001/2025 BETWEEN: DILEEP KUMAR L K, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, C/O CHENNAPPA, THIMAPPANAPALYA, HEJJALA POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562109. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR B.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S WONDERLA HOLIDAYS LTD., 28 KM, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE - 562109 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION MR. SIVADAS M REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. ...RESPONDENT (BY KUM PRACHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASHANTH B K, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DTD. 07.03.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SL.A NO.396/2024 (OLD SL.A.NO.14/2019) APPENDED TO THE PETITION AS ANNX-A AND ETC. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS THESE PETITIONS 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 These petitions are filed by the workmen assailing the orders rejecting their applications for amendment of statement of objections in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947'). 2. The admitted factual position is the amendment applications are filed after the evidence was recorded on issues No.1 and 2 in Section 33(2)(b) proceedings under the Act, 1947. 3. Issue No.1 relates to the maintainability of the petition under Section 33(2)(b) of Act, 1947. Issue No.2 relates to the fairness of the domestic enquiry. 4. In the applications filed by the workmen seeking amendment of statement of objection filed before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioners sought to incorporate the facts relating - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS to a dispute pending consideration in proceeding No. AID 25/15. 5. It is relevant to mention that in the statement of objections, workmen have already taken a defence that the proceeding in AID 42/2015 is pending consideration, concerning the same workmen, as such, the applications filed by the employer under Section 33(2)(b) is not maintainable. 6. It is an admitted fact that that applications seeking amendment are filed when the applications under Section 33(2)(b) were posted for reply arguments of the workmen. 7. It appears that the management had opposed the workmen tendering the evidence relating to the proceeding bearing AID No.25/15, on the premise that there is no pleading to support the evidence. However, the evidence was led, and the documents relating to proceeding No.25/2015 were produced. 8. It appears that the workmen wanted to overcome the arguments advanced by the employer that the workmen led evidence without any pleading. Thus, the applications were - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS filed to incorporate the pleading relating to proceeding AID No.25/15. 9. The Tribunal has rejected the applications and has summarised its grounds for rejection in the impugned order as under:- 1. present application is filed at the fag end, i.e. after the trial has been commenced. 2. The present application is bad in law since, inspite of exercise of due diligence, the amendment was not sought earlier. 3. The amendment cannot be allowed so as to brought infirmity (sic) with the evidence already led in this case. 4. The proposed amendment will take away the valid defence of the applicant. 5. The present application cannot be allowed on the ground of inadvertence and typographical error it was not brought on record before commencement of the trial. 6. The application is not accompanied by the affidavit of the opposite party, and the application is not by the opposite party". 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the workmen is before this Court. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners-workmen would submit that the applications for amendment of the statement of objections to incorporate the plea relating to pendency of the proceeding in AID No.25/15 could not have been rejected on the premise that the applications are belated or there is no due diligence on the part of the workmen or on the ground that it causes prejudice to the respondent-Management. 12. It is his submission that the applications seeking amendment, seek to incorporate the facts which are not in dispute. The documents relating to the proceeding in AID No.25/15 are already produced, and the employer does not dispute the proceeding in AID No.25/15, and that being the position, the Tribunal should have allowed the application to incorporate the plea relating to proceeding AID No.25/15. 13. It is his further submission that the applications seeking amendment filed before the Industrial Tribunal should not be treated on par with the applications under Order VI Rule 17 filed before the Civil Court. It is urged that Section 11 of Act, 1947 enables the Labour Court to pass orders relating to the amendment which is sought after the commencement of - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS trial and the restrictions imposed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, would not come in the way of the Labour Court or the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act, 1947. 14. In support of his contention, he would place reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court in: 1) THE MUMBAI KAMGAR SABHA, BOMBAY vs M/s. ABDULBHAI FAIZULLABHAI AND OTHERS 1 2) M/S. AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CENTRE vs SRI S SELVARAJ 2 15. Learned counsel for the respondent/employer would vehemently oppose the petitions challenging the orders rejecting the applications seeking amendment, by citing various judgments, to support the following grounds: (a) The petitioners before this Court are not diligent in filing the applications seeking amendment (b) Before the applications were filed, workmen had applied to dismiss the petition under Section 33(2)(b) as not 1 (1976)3 SCC 832 2 W.P.Nos.19333/2012 & 19334/2012 (d.d.19.06.2012) - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS maintainable in view of the pendency of the dispute in AID No.42/2015. (c) The applications filed for dismissal of the petitions were later dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, I.A.3/2019 was filed to frame an additional issue relating to maintainability of the petition in view of the pendency of the proceeding in AID No.42/2015. And even when the said application at I.A. 3/2019 was filed the workmen have not moved application for amendment of the statement of objection. (d) Later, when the case is listed for arguments on the of the workmen, after the conclusion of the arguments by the employer, the applications are filed to plug the loophole and the infirmities pointed out during the arguments addressed by the employer. (e) The Workmen could have raised this defence relating to AID No.25/15 much earlier, when he had filed applications for dismissing the petition on the ground of maintainability and for recasting the issues. - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS (f) The amendment which is now sought takes away the defence of the employer and causes prejudice to the employer as such, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the applications seeking amendment. (g) The application seeking amendment is not supported by the affidavit as such, the applications are not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Dispute Rules 16. Learned counsel would refer to the following judgments in support of her contentions: i) MASHYAK GRIHNIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT vs USMAN HABIB DHUKA AND ORS.3 ii) AJENDRAPRASADJI N PANDE AND ORS. vs SWAMI KESHAVPRAKESHDASJI N AND ORS.4 iii) R PALANISWAMY AND ANR. vs NARAGRAJAN5 iv) CHANDRASHEKAR vs K A SRINIVASAN AND ORS.6 v) A. RAVINDRANATH vs UMA S POOJARY AND ORS.7 vi) SURINDER AND ANOTHER vs RAJINDER AND OTHERS 8 vii) PADAM KAUSHAL vs RAJAN DOGRA9 viii) PRAVEEN KUMAR BANSAL vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE10 ix) GAJANAN KRISHNAJI BAPAT AND ORS. vs DATTAJI RAGHOBOJI MEGHE AND ORS.11 3 AIR 2013 SC 3188 4 AIR 2007 SC 806 5 CRP PD No.987/2023 & CMP 7277/2023 6 2022 KHC 37502 7 2003(3) Kar LJ 197 8 2013 SCC Online P&H 16434 9 2015 (154) AIC703 10 2015 SC Online Raj 9113 11 AIR 1995 SC 2284 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS x) CHAPPIDI SATYANARAYANAMMA vs CHAPPIDI DHANALAKSHMI12 xi) SHIVSHANKARA AND ORS. vs H P VEDAVYASA CHAR13 xii) K DEVDAS KUMAR AND ORS. vs INDIRA14 xiii) RAJKUMAR GURUWARA (DEAD) THR. L.Rs. vs S.K.SARWAGI AND CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS15 xiv) CHANDER KANTA BANSAL vs RAJINDER SINGH ANAND16 xv) BASAVARAJ vs INDIA AND ORS.17 xvi) J.SAMUEL AND ORS. vs GATTU MAHESH AND ORS.18 xvii) M.RAVANNA vs ANJANAMMA (DEAD) BY L.Rs. AND Ors.19 xviii) T G VEERAPRASAD AND ORS. vs PRAKASH GANDHI AND ORS.20 xix) MR.MADHAVA DEVADIGA vs MR.VENKATARAMANA AITHAL21 xx) PURAN RAM vs BHAGURAM AND ORS.22 xxi) NEERAJ KUMAR AND ORS. vs DASONDHI LAL23 ` 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply would submit that initially applications seeking amendment were filed along with duly sworn affidavit, later, noticing the formal defect in the prayer, the applications were not pressed and thereafter, the applications are filed along with the memo of facts signed by the authorised representative. 12 2014(5) ALD 761 13 2018 KHC 29148s 14 2018 KHC 29148 15 AIR 2008 SC 2234 16 AIR 2008 SC 2234 17 (2024)3 SCC 705 18 (2012)2 SCC 300 19 AIR 2019 SC 940 20 2022(5) Kar L J 673 21 W.P.No.33569/2013(Gm-CPC) 22 AIR 2008 SC 1960 23 2024 HHC 3348 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 18. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records and also kept in mind the well settled principles governing amendments which are reiterated in the judgments referred to supra. 19. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in the year 2002. Before the amendment, the power of the Court to allow the application for amendment was wider as compared post-amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002. 20. However, the power to amend the pleading at any stage of the proceeding is not taken completely taken away though it is restricted to some extent. Consequent to the amendment of Order VI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the year 2002, the party seeking amendment has to establish that despite diligence, he could not have raised matter before the commencement of the trial. 21. The Apex Court had the occasion to consider the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, T.N. vs UNION of INDIA24. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment reads as under: "26. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code deals with the amendment of pleadings. By the Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002, but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if an application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 22. It is observed by the Apex Court in the said paragraph that, "the object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial." 23. In this background, this Court has to consider the amendment which is sought to be incorporated. 24. There is no dispute that the proceeding No. AID 25/2015 was pending consideration when the petitioners were 24 AOR 2005 SC 3353 - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS dismissed from service. Petitioners have produced the records relating to the said proceeding before the Tribunal. It is not the case of the employer that the records do not pertain to the said proceeding. 25. The workmen are contending that the dispute concerning the workmen were pending consideration when they were dismissed from employment; Thus, the fact relating to the proceeding which was said to be pending when the workmen were dismissed will have a bearing on the outcome of the petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. 26. The whole object of allowing amendment is to ensure the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. 27. If the Court feels that the averments which are sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment are necessary for complete adjudication of the real controversy between the parties, then the Court has to allow the application seeking amendment. Though the power of the Court to allow the application seeking amendment after the commencement of - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS the trial is restricted to some extent, it is not an absolute bar to permit the amendment after the commencement of the trial. 28. The Court has to consider whether the amendment sought is only to a delay the proceeding or the amendment sought has any relevancy and necessary for adjudication of the controversy. In addition the Court has to consider whether the party seeking amendment despite his diligence could not have raised the matter/contentions earlier. 29. From the averments sought to be incorporated by way of amendment and from the contentions raised relating to the proposed amendment, one cannot conclude that the averments relating to the pendency of the proceedings, which are sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment, are not necessary for complete adjudication of the case. The contentions raised in the proposed amendment, if established may have a bearing on the final outcome of the proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act,1947. And more over, the facts relating to pendency of the proceeding sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment, appear to be a fact, as the proceeding in AID. No.25/2015 is not disputed. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 30. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that an amendment to incorporate a plea to support the evidence led without any plea, cannot be allowed and reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat and Ors. vs Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and Ors. Supra. Said proceeding arose in an election petition. The pleadings in the election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is governed by Sections 83 and 86(5) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 stand on a different footing vis-à-vis the pleadings before the Labour Court under the Act, 1947. Hence, the ratio laid down in the aforementioned case cannot be applied to hold that the amendment to support the evidence which is already been led without pleading is impermissible. There cannot be any such universal proposition. In appropriate cases, even where the amendment is sought to be incorporated to support the evidence which has already been led without pleading can be allowed, and this Court is of the view that this is one such case where the party seeks to incorporate the averments relating to the pendency of a proceeding before the Tribunal. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 31. As far as the contention that the application is not supported by an affidavit as required under Rule 18(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Dispute Rules, it is to be noticed that earlier to these applications, applications were was filed seeking amendment and those applications were supported by an duly signed affidavit. Those applications were dismissed as not pressed, as the prayer in the applications was not proper. 32. Thereafter, incorporating the same averments, applications are filed by the Authorised Signatory accompanied by memorandum of facts. The contents of the memorandum of facts and the contents of the affidavit, filed earlier, are, by and large, the same. Moreover, the averments relate to the pendency of a proceeding before the Labour Court/Tribunal, which is not disputed by the employer. 33. This Court, though it finds some technical defect in the application seeking amendment, is of the view that such a technical defect can be overlooked to allow the applications for amendment which are otherwise maintainable as the applications for amendment seek to incorporate few facts relating to previous proceedings before the Tribunal and - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS pendency of the proceeding which is subject matter of the amendment is not in dispute. 34. Assuming that the applications are not maintainable for want of an affidavit and the same are dismissed on that count, said order does not prevent the petitioners from filing one more application with a proper affidavit. To avoid that, this Court is of the view that the applications filed along with a memo of facts to incorporate the facts relating to the proceedings, which are not in dispute, have to be allowed, in the facts of these cases which are already discussed. 35. As far as contention relating to prejudice, raised by the employer is concerned, the proposed amendment does not come in the way of the employer raising a contention that the pendency of the proceeding in AID No.25/15 does not come in the way of the employer dismissing the workmen without permission, if such contention is available in law. It is still open for the employer to contend that, despite pendency of AID No.25/15, the respondent-employer was not required to seek permission, before dismissing the workmen and the employer is only required to seek approval under Section 33(2)(b) of Act, - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 1947 if such contention is available in law. Merely because the amendment is allowed, the contention of the employer is not taken away. The workmen are required to establish their contention and the employer is required to establish its contention. 36. Though it is strenuously urged that the workmen were not diligent in moving the applications and they could have moved the applications seeking amendment much earlier, this Court is of the view that lapse on the part of the workmen has not caused prejudice to the contentions raised by the employer, though it may have caused some inconvenience to the employer as the applications are filed when the case was posted for final hearing of the workmen. 37. The judgment in Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Samstha Maryadit supra relied on the learned counsel for the employer does not assist the employer as in the said case the Apex Court held that the amendment seeking a declaration to challenge the conveyance deed is not permissible on the premise that the suit was filed in the year 2010 and the plaintiffs were aware of the sale deed of the year 1989. The - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS amendment was held to be impermissible in the aforementioned circumstances. 38. In Ajendraprasad Ji Pandey supra, the Apex Court has referred to various judgments governing post amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in the year 2002 has concluded that, the amendment sought by the defendants is rightly rejected by the Trial Court on the premise that the amendment sought seeks to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case. In the instant case it is noticed that the proposed amendment does not seek to raise an inconsistent defense than what is already raised. The amendment sought is in aid of the defense which is already raised and the evidence led. 39. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chandrashekar supra, is not applicable to the facts of the case as the amendment sought in the said case was the amendment of the claim petition and the applicant sought amendment of description of the respondents and also wanted to incorporate additional prayers by way of amendment. - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 40. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has noticed that the amendment sought cannot be granted in view of the law laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sanjeev Builders Private Limited25. This Court after noticing the law in Life Insurance Corporation of India supra is of the view that the amendment sought by the workmen is certainly permissible in the light of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned case. 41. The judgment in A Ravindranath supra rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court deals with a situation where the defendant 11 years after the suit was filed, sought amendment to introduce a contradictory defense based on alleged Will. In the original written statement the defense was based on the dissolution of partnership firm and acquisition of right over the property as per the terms of partnership dissolution deed. In those circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court declined to grant amendment. Said ratio cannot be applied to the facts of this case. 25 AIR 2022 SC 4256 - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 42. The judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in K Devdas Kumar supra, the Court was dealing with the question relating to an amendment of written statement filed nine years after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff. The Court has concluded that the application was barred by limitation referring to the facts of the said case. In the instant case, one cannot conclude that application for amendment of statement of objection is barred by limitation. 43. The judgment in RAJKUMAR GURUWARA and Ors supra, deals with the amendment of the plaint where the amendment introduced a new prayer which was barred by limitation. This Court is of the view that the amendment to statement of objection filed by the workmen cannot be rejected applying the ratio laid down in the said case is on an application seeking amendment of the plaint which was barred by limitaion. 44. The judgment in CHANDER KANTA BANSAL supra, deals with an application for amendment, 18 years after the evidence and arguments were closed. The Court found that - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS the reasons assigned for seeking amendment were not justified. 45. In the instant case, the averments sought to be introduced are in respect of the disputes pending between the parties which will have a bearing on the final outcome of the proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of Act, 1947. This is a clear distinguishing factor which is not available in the judgments cited on behalf of the employer. Therefore, this Court is not persuaded by judgments of other High Courts referred to supra by the learned counsel for the employer. 46. The judgment in J SAMUEL supra, is rendered in a fact situation where the amendment application was filed when the matter was heard on merit and reserved for judgment which is not the case here. 47. The judgment in M REVANNA vs ANJAMMA supra, deals with a situation where amendment sought to be introduced, if allowed results in inconsistent case and change in the fundamental character of the suit. Such application for amendment of the plaint was held to be not maintainable. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 48. It is well settled position of law that amendment to written statement stands on different footing as compared to the amendment in the plaint. Though the amendment which is sought to be introduced when the case was posted for argument on behalf of the workmen, the amendment sought to be introduced is not inconsistent to the plea which is already taken but it appears to be in aid of the plea already taken and consistent with evidence already led. 49. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders have to be set aside and accordingly, set-aside. Consequently, the amendment proposed is allowed. 50. The employer before the Tribunal is permitted to file a rejoinder to the amended statement of objection, if so advised. Thereafter, the Tribunal shall consider the petitions in accordance with the law. 51. It is further made clear that merely because the amendments are allowed, it does not mean that this Court has recorded a finding on the merits of the defence by the workmen. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS 52. The contentions on the merits have to be adjudicated in accordance with the law without being influenced by any of the aforementioned observations as the observations made in this order are only confined to the merit of the applications seeking amendment and not on the merits of the defence raised by the workmen. 53. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) Impugned orders dated 07.03.2025, in SLA. Nos.383/2024 (Old No.139/2018), 385/2024 (Old No.141/2018), 403/2024(Old No.25/2019), 392/2024 (Old No.3/2019), 387/2024 (Old No.143/2018), 388/2024 (Old No.144/2018), 404/2024 (Old No.28/2019), 398/2024 (Old No.16/2019), 393/2024 (Old No.4/2019), 391/2024 (Old No.2/2019), 399/2024 (Old No.17/19), 384/2024 (Old No.140/2018), 402/2024 (Old No.24/2019), 397/2024 (Old No.15/2019), 386/2024 (Old No.142/2018), 390/2024 (Old No.1/2019), 394/2024 (Old No.5/2019), 401/2024 (Old No.22/2019), 400/2024 (Old No.21/2019) and 396/2024 (Old No.14/2019) on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru rejecting the applications filed by the workmen are set-aside. - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28056 WP No. 9611 of 2025 C/W WP No. 13917 of 2025 WP No. 13918 of 2025 AND 17 OTHERS (iii) Consequently, applications filed by the workmen seeking amendment of statement of objection in the respective proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal are allowed. (iv) Employer is permitted to file rejoinder to the amended statement of objection, if so advised. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98