- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO.1036 OF 2025 (L-TER) BETWEEN: THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS COMPANY SECRETARY NOW REP BY CAO COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G. LANEKSHAPPA, S/O LATE G. MANJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, THYAJAVALLI VILLAGE, KONAGAVALLI POST, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. UMESHA, S/O UDUMALDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHANNESHWARA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 DAVANAGIRI DISTRICT. 3. H. CHANDRAPPA, S/O ADYAPPARA HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KERE VILLAGE, YADEHALLI POST, BHADRAVATI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 4. GURUMURTHY, S/O MANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, KALEDI ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SUBHASH NAGAR, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 5. PURUSHOTHAMA, S/O SHIVARMASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, AMBARAGODLU VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 6. B.T. SIDDAPPA, S/O THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOGEREHALLI VILLAGE, KADUR TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. 7. MALATHI, W/O LATE VASUDEVAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 5O YEARS, SHIRIGARU VILLAGE, SOJABURU POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 8. NAGARAJ, S/O NARAYANAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, JANATHA COLONY, AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 9. LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KUSAGUR VILLAGE, PUTTUR POST, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. 10. BASHEER, S/O VEERASAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HUNCHADAKATTE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDY. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R10) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:14.03.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.35415/2011 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra-court appeal is filed impugning the order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.35414/2011 and connected matters filed by the appellant impugning the Awards dated 25.02.2010 in Industrial Dispute Nos.24/2005, 08/2005 and 26/2005 on the file of Labour Court, Mangalore. 2. The point for reference in all the writ petitions was almost identical which would read as under: "ಆಡತ ವಗದವ ಾದ ೖಸೂರು ೇಪ  ೆ ಭಾವ, ವ!ಗ" #$ೆ% ಇವರು ಅ#ಾರ ಾದ ೕ #. (ೆ). ಬಸವ ಾ,, ಲ./ಣಪ1 ಮತು3 ೕಮ ಸುವಣಮ4 ಎಂಬ 7ಾಕರನು: ;<ಾಂಕ:20.11.2003. =ಂದ 7ೆಲಸ;ಂದ >ೆ?ೆದು(ಾ@ರುವAದು <ಾBಯ ಸಮ4ತDೇ ? 2) (ಾEಲ%ದ ಪ.ದ% ಈ 7ಾಕರು Gಾವ =ೕಯ ಪ=(ಾರ7ೆH ಅಹರು ?" 3. The Labour Court had answered the Reference vide Awards dated 25.02.2010 partly in favour of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 workmen and held that workmen would be entitled to reinstatement to their original posts with continuity of service along with 50% backwages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement. The workmen had put in almost 10 years of employment in the appellant-establishment before their services came to be terminated with effect from 20.11.2003 without complying with the provisions of retrenchment as provided under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471. The only contention raised by the appellant before the Writ Court was that the workmen were not regular employees, but they were daily wagers. Under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 'workman' is not defined in terms of permanent, regular, temporary or casual. Section 2(s) of the ID Act reads as under: "2[(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a 1 For short ‘ID Act’ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person— (i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.]" 4. A person who is employed by an Establishment on payment of remuneration/wages is defined as 'workman'. It is not in dispute that no notice and no retrenchment compensation was paid to the workmen before terminating their services with effect from 20.11.2003. 5. As the Establishment is closed, therefore, the learned Single Judge has held that the order of reinstatement cannot be worked out however, the learned Single Judge has not interfered with the order of granting - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31129-DB WA No. 1036 of 2025 50% backwages from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly undisputed fact that the workmen had put in almost 10 years in employment of the appellant before their services came to be terminated by the appellant-Establishment, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 ct-vn