- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45431-DB WP No. 10938 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 10938 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER RAIL WHEEL FACTORY (FORMERLY WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT) YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560064 …PETITIONER (BY SRI N S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ABHINAY Y T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRESIDENT WHEEL AND AXLE PLANT CONTRACT WORKERS UNION NO.43, MIG, 2ND FLOOR 2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN C.R.NO.48 OF 2003 DATED 12.03.2019 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45431-DB WP No. 10938 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in C.R.No.48/2003. The reference made under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the said Act') vide Reference Order dated 18.11.2004 would read as under: "Whether the action of the management of Wheel and Axle Plant is justified in denying employment to 119 Contract Labourers with effect from 31.03.2001? If not, what relief the Labourers are entitled to?" 2. The Tribunal, on examination of the evidence lead by the parties and after considering the submissions, was of the view that the retrenchment of the workmen with effect from 31.03.2001 was illegal as they were not paid the retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the said Act. Therefore, the Management has been directed to pay the retrenchment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45431-DB WP No. 10938 of 2021 compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 31.03.2001 till the date of disbursement in favour of the workmen, after proper verification and identification. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Management submits that the Management has notified the said award and has asked the workmen to submit their claim, and whosoever has come, after the due verification and identification, the retrenchment compensation has been paid to him. He further submits that if some workmen are left out, they can stage their claim and after due verification and identification, the retrenchment compensation shall be paid to them promptly. 4. It is, however, submitted that the Management is aggrieved only by the second part of the award, which would read as under: "If they apply for any vacancy which may arise in the 2nd Party they shall be considered for the post by giving benefit of age relaxation if they are found suitable otherwise." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the retrenchment took place way back in 2001. We are in the year - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45431-DB WP No. 10938 of 2021 2025. There cannot be age relaxation for 25 to 30 years. Most of the workmen are above 50 years of age and some have crossed the age of superannuation. Such an omnibus observation or direction for age relaxation should not have been given by the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/Workers' Union does not dispute this assertion made on behalf of the petitioner/Management that most of the workmen would have crossed 50 years of age by now and some of them have even crossed the age of superannuation. 7. As the Tribunal has not given any band for age relaxation such as, 5 to 10 years and it has just made an omnibus observation that any workman who is qualified should be given age relaxation, we are of the view that such an observation or direction cannot be worked out. There cannot be age relaxation for 25 to 30 years. It can be only for a limited period i.e., 5 to 7 years and not beyond that. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45431-DB WP No. 10938 of 2021 8. As the second part of the award cannot be worked out, we are of the considered view that the award is untenable and therefore, we set aside the same. 9. With the aforesaid, we close this writ petition. In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18