- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33713 WP No. 40063 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 40063 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. M.KRISHNAPPA S/O. MADHANAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1(A) SMT. SIDDAMMA, W/O. LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 1(B) SMT. SHOBHA, D/O. LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 1(C) SRI. RAVI, S/O. LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 1(D) SRI. MAHADEVA, S/O. LATE M.KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS.1(A) TO 1(D) ARE RESIDING AT N.11/1, 5TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, K.P.AGRAHARA, BENGALURU. 2. BASAVARAJ, S/O. NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33713 WP No. 40063 of 2014 3. SMT. BABY, W/O. LATE ANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS. 1(A)-(D) TO 3 ARE C/O. KARNATAKA TEXTILES AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION, NO.87, SUDHA BUILDING, S.C.ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASWATHANARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. THE MANAGEMENT OF DHONDUSA & SONS TWISTING FACTORY, SITUATED AT NO.3/1, MALLIKARJUNA GUDI BEEDI, B.V.K.IYENGAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560053. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR NAMELY SRI. NANDAKUMAR, …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.S.SOMNATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33713 WP No. 40063 of 2014 ORAL ORDER Sri.Aswathanarayana Reddy., counsel for the petitioners and Sri.H.S.Somnath., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person. 2. The petitioners have assailed the award dated 01.09.2006 passed by the Labor Court in Reference No.38/1999 on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.6634/2007 before this Court, challenging the very same award of the Labor Court. The said writ petition, however, was dismissed on 11.10.2007 for non-compliance with office objections. Counsel further contended that the petitioners have not sought recall of the dismissal order but have instead filed the present writ petition assailing the same award. Hence, according to the respondent, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the earlier dismissal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33713 WP No. 40063 of 2014 order bars the petitioners from challenging the award for the second time. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that an application in I.A.No.2/2018 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, wherein it was contended that the earlier writ petition had been dismissed for non-compliance with office objections. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced and perused the application with utmost care. 5. The issue falls within a narrow compass, namely, whether the award of the Labor Court can be challenged for the second time. It is pivotal to note that the petitioners had already assailed the award in W.P.No.6634/2007, which was dismissed for non-compliance with office objections. In the amendment application, except for stating that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for non-compliance, there is no prayer seeking restoration or recall of the dismissal order dated 11.10.2007. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2018 is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33713 WP No. 40063 of 2014 As already observed, the petitioners had earlier challenged the award, and the writ petition was dismissed. In the absence of any prayer to recall the dismissal order, it must be concluded that the present writ petition is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 6. By reason of dismissal of the writ petition, any interim order granted, if in force, stands discharged. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79