- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40094 WP No. 32522 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 32522 OF 2013 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.V.KRISHNAPPA, S/O VENKATARAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. 1(a) SMT.VASANTHAMMA, W/O. LATE.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 1(b) SMT.PREETI, D/O. LATE.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. 1(c) SRI.DEEPAK, S/O. LATE.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF FLAT NO.301, 4TH FLOOR, SABARI PIRAMID APARTMENT, 11TH CROSS, LBS NAGAR, VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S KARNATAKA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED, Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40094 WP No. 32522 of 2013 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.N.S.NARASIMHA SWAMY., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.A.C.Balaraj., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.N.S.Narasimha Swamy., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The award dated 18.03.2013 passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.02/2011 vide Annexure-W is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urges several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the award passed by the Labour Court requires interference. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40094 WP No. 32522 of 2013 5. Suffice it to note that the workman V.Krishnappa was appointed by the respondent on 08.10.1975, and he reached the scale of Driller/ Asst. Driller in the grade of JAE/ AAE, with whom his colleagues were confirmed. The respondent incurred heavy losses of over Rs 2 Crores, and the Government of Karnataka, in its order DDPER 55 ARU 2003 dated 03.09.2003, ordered for the closure of activities and to relieve all the regular employees. Accordingly, the respondent closed its activities and relieved its 656 employees under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2003. It also closed all the branches in 2004. The regular employees opted for the VRS and submitted their voluntary retirement. The petitioner was one among them, and he was relieved on 31.10.2003 and received all the retirement benefits as worked out by the State Accounts Department. As the entitlements were settled, the relationship between the parties ceased. Strangely, the workman raised a dispute after a lapse of almost eight years in Ref. No.02/2011 before the Labour Court. The workman contended that the respondent Management forced him to opt for VRS, and there is a denial of monetary benefits. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and, taking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40094 WP No. 32522 of 2013 note of the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties, negatived the said contention. As far as the delay in raising the dispute, the Labour Court concluded that there is a deliberate delay on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court, and it is a stale dispute. In my view, the finding and the conclusion in rejecting the reference are just and proper. The reason is apparent. As already noted above, the workman was relieved in 2003, and the relationship had ceased to exist; hence, the contention that there was a force to opt for VRS must necessarily fail. Moreover, the Apex Court in PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 has held that when there is no agitation by the workman for a long time and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay and laches remained unexplained, it should be presumed that he had waived his right. It is also observed that at the time when the dispute was raised, it had become stale and was not an existing dispute. Even in the present case, when the dispute was raised by the workman, it had virtually become a stale dispute. There is an inordinate delay in raising the dispute. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40094 WP No. 32522 of 2013 rightly rejected the reference. I find no grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of the rejection of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and the interim direction, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18