- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1440 OF 2023 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJU B.S. S/O SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.349, 4TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, NRUPATHUNGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560072. 2. MR. RANGAIAH S/O N. MANI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.64, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, LAKSHMINAGAR, BASAWESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. 3. MR. PRAKASH .V S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.43, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, PANCHASHEKARNAGAR, NAGARABAVI, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560072. PRESENTLY R/AT NO.117, 4TH MAIN, 8TH CROSS, PACHASHEELANAGAR, NAGARABAVI, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU-560072. 4. MR. KUMAR .D S/O DORESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.276, 2ND MAIN, 8TH CROSS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 PRAKASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560021. 5. MR. SRINIVASA .A S/O LATE RAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.867, 7TH CROSS, MUNESHWARA BADAVANE, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560058. 6. RAMKUMAR MILLS KARMIKA SANGHA ® NO.138, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RADHA R. ADVOCATE & SRI HARSHA G., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. RAMKUMAR MILLS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.1044 4TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. SHIVAKUMAR A. YADALAM S/O LATE Y.S. ADINARAYANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUBRAHMANYA M.K., ADVOCATE) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED IN O.S.NO.25386/2018 ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE PARTLY DECREED THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 in O.S. No.25386/2018 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) (‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. By the judgment and decree, the Trial Court decreed the suit in part, permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendants and their agents from blocking the entry and exit to the suit schedule property or from restraining the free movement of men, vehicles and materials/equipment in any form to or from the suit schedule premises. However, the prayer to restrain the defendants from resorting to strike/agitation within 50 meters from the two gates of the factory was refused. Instead, injunction was granted restraining strike / agitation inside the factory premises, in front of the 2 factory gates or within 20 meters from the 2 gates, as depicted in the sketch at Ex.P.19. 3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 4. Accompanying with the appeal, I.A. No.1/2023 is filed to condone the delay of 208 days in preferring the appeal. The ground stated for condoning the delay is culled out at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 which reads as under: “2. I state that pending suit O.S.No.25386/2018, the management filed the Writ Petition No.40009/2018, questioning the order of refusal of the closer of the company passed by the Labour secretary. In that suit there was a move for settlement among the parties which does not became effective and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide order dated 04.02.2020 against which a Writ Appeal was filed by the Plaintiff management in Writ appeal No.215/2020, during the Writ Appeal pendency also there was a move for settlement talks. The said Writ Appeal was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 12.11.2021, there by setting aside/ quashing the order passed by Labour secretary dated 29.6.2018 and 2.8.2018 with a further direction to the appropriate Government to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to pass appropriate order by assigning reasons. There after the Labour secretary pass the order dated 31.10.2022 granting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 closure permission retrospectively but with a direction to pay the workmen the Ex-gractia as one month salary for every completed years of service. Aggrieved by the said order both parties filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ petition No.24956/2022 by the Plaintiff management and the Writ Petition No.25857/2022 by the workmen. The plaintiff under the guise of settlement and on questioning the orders passed by the appropriate authority at one stretch dragged the matter, instead of paying the actual legal dues to the workmen, at the same time put the workmen restricting them from enforcing the their legal strike. 3. I state that as the matters is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and there after Labour secretary/ appropriate Government and also before the High Court of Karnataka, we are under the impression that the Plaintiff /management will settle our dues legally. Further as all the defendants/workmen are without employment we are also not financially sound to file cases after cases but the plaintiff management under the guise of challenging the order in one forum or another trying to remove all the costly machineries kept inside the factory by taking advantage of the injunction order passed in the above said suit. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 Hence with no other alternative after unanimous decisions we decided to file the appeal against he impugned order as per the advice of our counsel.” 5. Objections are filed by the respondent-company to the application, contending delay is not sufficiently explained. 6. Facts: The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board passed an order on 16.03.2018, the respondent-company suspended the manufacturing operations of M/s. Ramkumar Mills Pvt. Ltd., from 26.03.2018. The appellants, who are the members of appellant No.6-union, on the same day, caused disturbance, blocking entry and exit and obstructing of men, machinery and materials compelling the respondent- company to file a suit for permanent injunction. The Trial Court, by its judgment dated 30.07.2022, partly decreed the suit. The company closed down its undertaking with Government’s permission. The respondent-company issued termination notices to 114 workmen, with closure compensation, gratuity and leave encashment. However, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 the Government later directed additional compensation which led the company to file WP No.24956/2022, interim stay was granted and the matter is pending. Despite closure, the appellants obstructed removal of machinery, forcing the company to seek police protection in WP No.4789/2023, which was allowed. 7. Having considered I.A.No.1/2023 and the record, this Court finds the delay of 208 days in filing the appeal against the decree dated 30.07.2022, is not satisfactorily explained; pendency of settlement talks or other writ proceedings does not constitute ‘sufficient cause’ particularly when the appellants were at all times aware of the decree and despite it, persisted in obstructing ingress/egress and removal of machinery, compelling the respondent-company to approach this Court in WP No.4789/2023, which was allowed on 07.03.2023, directing police protection, it is only thereafter that the present appeal has been filed, thereby demonstrating that the appellants instead of complying with the subsisting decree, deliberately choose to continue obstruction and resort to belated appellate proceedings. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32423 RFA No. 1440 of 2023 Even otherwise, on merits, the Trial Court has correctly balanced the rights of the parties by protecting free access of the management while confining the workmen’s demonstrations to beyond 20 meters from the gates, and no ground for interference is made out. In these circumstances, to deter abuse of the judicial process, costs are warranted, accordingly, I.A.No.1/2023 is rejected on payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the appellants to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within four weeks, failing which the same will be recoverable in accordance with law. It is clarified that issues concerning compensation, including those raised in WP No.24956/2022, will be adjudicated on its own merits and do not impinge upon the present decision. With the observation, appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Pending I.As would not survive for consideration. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72