- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5168 OF 2017 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S STUMPP, SCHUELE AND SOMAPP SPRINGS PVT LTD., NO.139/2, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 095, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI.K.NARAYANA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S N MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI G ANJINAPPA, S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 3RD CROSS, V.P.ROAD, OLD MADIWALA, BTM 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560039. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1, SRI B V ROOPESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER OF REFERENCE DT.26.12.2016 AT ANNX-P TO THE W.P. Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order of reference dated 26.12.2016. The reference order reads as under: "DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄ:¸ÀÖA¥ï ±ÀÆ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà ¹ÖçAUïì ¥ÉæöʪÉÃmï °«ÄmÉqï, PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560095, EªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ²æà f.DAd£À¥Àà EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-10-2004gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀĺÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ GAmÁzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀ. EªÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå F PɼÀPÀAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÉÊUÁjPÀ «ªÁzÀ«gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CUÀvÀåªÉAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÁåAiÀĤuÁðAiÀÄPÁÌV «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ CUÀvÀåªÉAzÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀjUÀt¹zÉ: DzÀÝjAzÀ PÉÊUÁjPÁ «ªÁzÀUÀ¼À C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1947 (PÉÃAzÁæ¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 14, 1947) gÀ 10£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ(1)£Éà G¥À-¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ (¹)/(r) RAqÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀzÀj «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀÄ ¤tðAiÀÄPÁÌV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÀÄ wAUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV wÃ¥Àð£ÀÄß M¦à¸À®Ä 3£Éà C¥ÀgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ. ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ 1. DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ ªÉÄ:¸ÀÖA¥ï ±ÀÆ¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆêÀÄ¥Àà ¹ÖçAUïì ¥ÉæöʪÉÃmï - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 °«ÄmÉqï, PÉÆÃgÀªÀÄAUÀ®, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 095. EªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ²æà f.DAd£À¥Àà ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï UÉÆëzÀA¥Àà, ©¯Éè ¸ÀASÉå.946, 45 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À:£ÀA.37, ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà PÁæ¸ï, «.¦.gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÀ¼Éà ªÀÄrªÁ¼À, ©.n.JA 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560069, EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:29-10-2014 gÀAzÀÄ PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ vÉUÉzÀĺÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀĸÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ? 2. ºÁUÀ®è¢¢Ý°è, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?" 3. From the aforementioned reference order, it is evident that the Government has proceeded to refer the dispute for adjudication on the premise that respondent No.2 is removed from service. 4. The petitioner is before this Court raising a contention that respondent No.2 was never removed from service. 5. In addition to that, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would also urge that respondent No.2 in terms of his application dated 11.06.2015 addressed to first respondent/ Assistant Labour Commissioner, has only sought for change of workplace from one plant to another. Respondent No.2 has raised an apprehension that pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent No.2, the petitioner-Management may deny employment. 6. Admittedly, no order is produced to hold that the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 petitioner has denied the employment to respondent No.2. Under these circumstances, learned Senior Counsel would urge that, the point for reference framed by the Government is inappropriate in the absence of any termination order or any material to hold that the employment is denied. 7. Learned Government Advocate would defend the impugned order and would contend that all these questions are to be decided by the Labour Court in accordance with law. 8. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2. 9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 10. The impugned order dated 26.12.2016 does not refer to any application filed by respondent No.2. It appears that, this order is passed pursuant to the application dated 11.06.2015 wherein, the petitioner has sought for change of workplace from one plant to another and he has only apprehended that the employment may be denied by the employer pursuant to the complaint dated 11.06.2015. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 11. Since, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was never denied employment, the question of adjudicating the point for reference, whether the petitioner has terminated the service of the respondent No.2 does not arise for consideration. 12. There is no application of mind by respondent No.1 while framing the point for reference. In addition to that, it is also noticed that a dispute relating to the change of workplace from one place to another, cannot be raised individually and it has to be raised through the Union. 13. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 26.12.2016 has to be set aside. The matter has to go back to respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has to apply its mind and then has to consider whether any dispute as alleged by respondent No.2 exists or not. Then appropriate order has to be passed. 14. It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13003 WP No. 5168 of 2017 15. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned order dated 26.12.2016 marked at Annexure-P is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent to consider whether the there exists an industrial dispute or not. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS/brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21