- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 25597 OF 2018 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (V) T.L. AND S.S. DIVISION,KPTCL, TUMKUR - 572102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MANJUNATH, SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LR 1(a) MR.KIRAN S, S/O N SRINATHA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, UNIT B BELAKU, 9TH "C" CROSS ROAD, MALLIGE ROAD, ASHOKA NAGAR, TUMKUR - 572103. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.01.2025) 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,KARMIKA BHAVAN,BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ITI COMPOUND, BENGALURU - 560029, BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T M VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 AND ALSO FOR PROPOSED LR'S OF R1, SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AWARD DTD 4.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REFERENCE NO.12/2014 [ANNEXURE-E] AS NULL AND VOID AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award in Ref.No.12/2014 dated 04.12.2017 wherein the Labour Court, Bengaluru has set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner/Management to reinstate the respondent/workman. 2. It is also noticed that the award does not direct the payment of any backwages and any other consequential benefits but only directs that the petitioner/Management to pay Rs.2,000/-per month to the respondent/workman as salary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent/workman died during the pendency of this petition and there cannot be any award for reinstatement of respondent/workman. 4. It is urged that though the application is filed to bring the legal representative (son) on record, the prayer for - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 reinstatement does not survive for consideration as the legal representative (son) is not entitled for reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that though respondent/workman is not reinstated in terms of the award, the wages at Rs.2,000/- per month is paid to the respondent/workman from the date of award till his death in February, 2023. 6. Under these circumstances, it is urged that part of the award with regard to reinstatement needs to be set aside and the remaining portion of the award is to be treated as having been complied. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that post the impugned award, there is revision in the wages and same is notified in terms of the order dated 02.05.2019. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent is entitled to benefit of the revised wages and further submits that respondent is no more, the adopted son who is now on record has to be paid the said amount. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that adoption is not established and no material is placed to hold - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 that the respondent is the adopted son. It is also submitted that so far Rs.1,21,806/- is paid to the respondent from the date of the impugned award till February, 2023 i.e., till his death. 9. Since, a claim is made that the deceased workman has left behind an adopted son, the liberty is reserved to the respondent No.1(a) to submit the application before the petitioner along with necessary documents to support his claim relating to alleged adoption. The petitioner shall consider the same and if satisfied that respondent No.1(a) is the duly adopted son, shall disburse the amount if any due in terms of revised wages, to the deceased respondent. 10. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition stands disposed of. (ii) Respondent No.1(a) is granted liberty to make representation with necessary documents to support his claim before the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 (iii) The petitioner shall consider the said representation to be made by the respondent No.1(a), who claims to be the adopted son of the deceased respondent. (iv) In case, the petitioner is satisfied that the respondent No.1(a) is the adopted son, then the petitioner shall pay the revised dues if any, payable to the deceased respondent. (v) The exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of representation to be submitted by the respondent. (vi) The payment as ordered by the Labour Court in terms of the impugned award, same stands satisfied. However, the award relating to reinstatement does not survive for consideration. (vii) The Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim relating to the alleged adoption and the claim relating to alleged arrears based on wage revision. (viii) In case, the petitioner is satisfied that the respondent No.1(a) is the duly adopted son, and if, the petitioner is of the view that deceased respondent was eligible for revised wages, it is permissible for the petitioner to insist for necessary - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9336 WP No. 25597 of 2018 indemnity bond to be executed by respondent No.1(a) to insulate the petitioner from any possible claim by persons claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE ssd/brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25