- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 23931 OF 2014 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 30077 OF 2015 (L-BO) IN WP No. 23931/2014: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G BABU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR PEENYA (OPPOSITE I.R. POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560058 2. SRI H LINGANNA GOWDA S/O HENJARAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR PEENYA (OPPOSITE I.R. POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560058 3. SRI P M SURESH S/O LATE MUDALAGIRIYA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR PEENYA (OPPOSITE I.R. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560058 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD NO.86, 3RD PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI RAMACHANDRAN K.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DT.01.02.2014, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE INDUSTRIAL, TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ID.NO.90/09, PRODUCED AT ANN- C. IN WP NO. 30077/2015: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G. BABU S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED BOUT 38 YEARS, NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR, PEENYA (OPPOSITE I R POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560 058. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 2. SRI H LINGANNA GOWDA, S/O HENJARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR, PEENYA (OPPOSITE I R POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560 058. 3. SRI P M SURESH S/O LAT MUDALAGIRIYA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.42, 3RD CROSS, KAVERINAGAR, PEENYA (OPPOSITE I R POLYTECHNIC) BANGALORE-560 058. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT. LTD. NO.86, 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560 058. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.R. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAMACHANDRAN K, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2014 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.152/2011 VIDE ANNEX-C, ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER IN WRIT PETITION No.23931/2014: This petition is filed assailing the award dated 01.02.2014 passed in I.D.No.90/2009 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. In terms of the said award, the reference is rejected. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners/workmen of the respondent/Company are before this Court. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the workmen of the respondent/Company and a charter of demand was raised by the Union initially and the said demand was not considered as the Union was not recognized. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 3. Thereafter, three members of the said Union raised an Industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer. The Conciliation Officer having recorded a finding that the conciliation has failed, has referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent raised a contention that an individual workman cannot raise a dispute of the nature so raised, and if there is any such dispute, the same is to be raised through the Union. The workmen contended that the dispute can be raised individually. 5. After considering the materials on record and the authorities on the point, the Labour Court has concluded that a dispute of this nature cannot be raised individually by the workmen and it has to be raised through the Union. 6. In addition to that, the Industrial Tribunal also recorded a finding that the demands raised by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 workmen, who raised the dispute are already fulfilled. The Industrial Tribunal has recorded a finding that the demands raised by the workmen viz., monthly pay slip, annual increment, attendance bonus, House rent allowance, Conveyance allowance, overtime payment, festival advance, leave book providing up to date EPF Form No.23, are fulfilled by the establishment. 7. This Court having gone through the finding of the Industrial Tribunal, does not find any error in the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned award. IN WRIT PETITION No.30077/2015: 8. In the instant case, the dispute is raised by four workmen and are not represented by the Union. The dispute is relating to the bonus payable. The petitioners contended that the respondent - Management has not paid 20% bonus as demanded by the workmen. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28522 WP No. 23931 of 2014 C/W WP No. 30077 of 2015 9. The Industrial Tribunal has concluded that the Management has awarded bonus, which is more than the minimum bonus provided under the Statute. This finding is based on the documentary evidence placed by the Management. There is no mandate that bonus has to be paid at the rate of 20%. 10. This being the position, this Court is of the view, that there is no error in the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 11. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49