- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31536-DB WA No. 784 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2025 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. M LAKSHMINARAYNA S/O H MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/A NO.14, 10TH CROSS CUBBON PETE, BANGALORE 560002 …APPELLANT (BY SRI THIPPESWAMY J.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B R JAYAKUMAR S/O LATE B K RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.1020, 6TH CROSS GOTTEGERE WEAVERS COLONY BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD BANGALORE 560083 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP NO.19195/2012 DATED 05/10/2018 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31536-DB WA No. 784 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant [employer] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 05.10.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19195 of 2012 [L-TER]. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an award passed by the learned Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent [workman] in service with 50% backwages. 2. The learned Labour Court had come to the conclusion that the respondent was an employee of the appellant and had worked for more than 240 days. The appellant impugned the said finding by filing the aforementioned writ petition, however, the learned Single Judge did not accept the appellant's contention. 3. The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 1,680 days. The explanation provided by the appellant for the inordinate delay is that, he was instructed by his advocate to file a writ appeal if he wanted to continue further proceedings. He, accordingly, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31536-DB WA No. 784 of 2025 instructed his advocate to file the present appeal. However, in the meanwhile, in the month of March 2020, lockdown was enforced in the wake of the Covid 19 pandemic, which was continued intermittently till 2022. He stated that he attempted to take instructions as to the status of the case, but he was not provided proper information. He claimed that he was under a bona fide belief that an appeal had been filed and was pending consideration. He states that in the month of April 2023, he underwent a surgical procedure. He became aware that no appeal was filed in the month of November 2024, when he received a warrant of a criminal case regarding non-implementation of the award. He once again approached his advocate in the month of May, 2025 and instructed him to file the appeal. He also claims that he was not aware of the law and limitation prescribed to file the appeal. 4. Given the said explanation, we are unable to accept that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause for filing the appeal within the prescribed period. There is no credible explanation as to the delay till the lockdown imposed in the month of March, 2020. However, by the time the lockdown was imposed, more than fifteen months of delay had already been occurred. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31536-DB WA No. 784 of 2025 5. The appellant claims that his advocate had expired during the lockdown period. However, even thereafter, there is no credible explanation for the delay till April, 2023. The appellant states that he underwent a heart surgery in month of April, 2023, but there are no details as to when he recovered and the reasons for delay thereafter. The appellant also states that he had become aware that no appeal had been filed on receiving a summons in the month of November 2024. However, even thereafter, the appellant did not act with any urgency as according to him the instructions to file the appeal were given in May 2025. 6. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as well. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29