- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 21804 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF ISLAMIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 076. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MR. ABDUL HAFIZ, 2. THE PRESIDENT, MR. KHAJA AKMAL UDDIN SHARIFF ISLAMIC MISSION OF INDIA, C/O. ISLAMIAH INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL PARK ROAD, HULIMAVU VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRABHAKAR RAO K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. GURUBASAPPANA MATA, NO.21, NEAR ANNAPOORNESHWARI TEMPLE, ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT, NAGADEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 056. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, NO.414, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, KARMIKARA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.V.P.REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M.J., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Prabhakar Rao.K., counsel for the petitioners, appeared through video conferencing, Sri.G.V.P.Reddy counsel on behalf of Sri. Raghupathi M.J., for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.P.Yoganna, counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: (a) Call for records from 3rd respondent on the file of IAA-1/CR-98/2018-19. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 (b) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ or order or orders setting aside the impugned order on the file of IAA-1/CR-98/2018-19, 3rd respondent, dated 16.02.2019, Annexure -E. (c) Pass such other orders or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. 3. The brief facts are these: The petitioner is a minority institution imparting education to poor students, without any aided facility. The first respondent was employed in the institution but remained unauthorizedly absent from duty. Consequently, the Union raised an industrial dispute in Reference No. 31 of 2009. Upon adjudication, the Labour Court, by its award dated 30.10.2012, passed an order in the matter. As the matter thus stood, one Sri Gurubasappa Mutta, purporting to represent all the workmen, filed a petition before respondent No.3 seeking prosecution of the petitioner under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is stated that the petitioners, in partial compliance with the award dated 30.10.2012, reinstated twenty employees. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 Thereafter, respondent No.3, by order dated 16.02.2019, granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner contends that respondent No.3 failed to consider its case while granting such a sanction. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, in advancing his submissions, vehemently contended that the Labour Court had passed the award on 30.10.2012. However, the application seeking permission to prosecute was filed only in the year 2018, resulting in an inordinate delay of nearly six years. It was argued that representations had been submitted, and the delay, as well as the absence of enforceability of the award beyond one year, had been brought to the notice of respondent No.3. Nevertheless, respondent No.3 failed to consider these aspects and proceeded to grant permission to prosecute the Management. In support of his contentions counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. ILR 1988 KARNATAKA 1825, President Cinema Workers Union V/s. Gopal Naidu. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 2. 1998 (5) SCC Pepsi Foods and Another V/s. Special Judicial Magistrate and others. 3. 2011 (13) SCC M/s.Thermax Ltd., and others v/s. K.M.Johny and others. 4. 2013 (4) SCC M/s.Ghcl Employees Stock Option V/s. M/s. India Infoline Limited. By way of reply, learned counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently contended that the question of delay does not arise in seeking permission to prosecute. It was submitted that the Union had made several representations for the implementation of the award, but the Management failed to act upon them. Despite repeated representations, the award remained unimplemented, thereby giving rise to a continuing cause of action for seeking permission to prosecute. Accordingly, the application was filed in 2018. It was further urged that respondent No.3, upon extensive consideration of the material on record, rightly granted permission to prosecute. Counsel also contended that permission was sought to prosecute the Management, whereas the present writ petition has been filed by the Principal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 Counsel for respondent No.1 has filed a memo placing reliance on order passed in W.P.No.327/2023 along with connected matters disposed of on 17.02.2026. Hence, it was submitted that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care. 6. The issue lies within a narrow compass and pertains to the grant of permission to prosecute. It is undisputed that the Labor Court, by its award dated 30.10.2012, adjudicated the dispute. It is equally undisputed that, though the award was passed in 2012, permission to prosecute was sought only thereafter, when one Sri Gurubasappa Mutta, claiming to represent all the workmen, filed a petition under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The records reveal that the Management, namely Islamia Institute of Technology, had submitted several representations bringing to the notice of respondent No.3 the aspect of delay. The application seeking prosecution was, therefore, highly belated. However, a perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3 demonstrates that the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 contentions raised by the Management were not considered, and permission to prosecute was accorded mechanically. Such an approach is untenable in law. The law is settled by the Court in PRESIDENT, CINEMA WORKERS UNION VS. GOPAL NAIDU, reported in ILR 1988 KAR 1825, that the enforceability of the award is restricted to one year by section 19 (3). If the award ceases to be enforceable after one year of non-compliance thereafter ceases to be an offence. If it ceases to be enforceable, it is not required to be complied with in law. The concept of enforceability and compliance thereof go hand in hand. 7. The award was passed in 2012, whereas permission to prosecute was sought only in 2018. In terms of law, an award ceases to be enforceable after one year of non-compliance and, thereafter, its breach does not constitute an offence. Respondent No.3, while granting sanction, failed to have due regard to these considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In view of the above, the order dated 16.02.2019 is hereby quashed, and the writ petition is allowed accordingly. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32103 WP No. 21804 of 2021 The order relied upon by respondent No.1 has not relevance to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Consequent upon the disposal of the petition, any interim order granted, if in force, stands discharged, and all pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49