- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 27031 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH G., S/O. GANGAGUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.2, JANTHA COLONY, MALLAGHATTA, BIDANAGERE POST, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDESWARASWAMY S.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY SPECIAL OFFICER (DO-6) DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, KARMIKA BHAVANA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560029. 4. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION -1, 1ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.10, K S L I BUILDING, BAGALUGUNTE, MANJUNATHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560073. 5. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED, H AND R JOHNSON (INDIA) DIVISION, (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956) UNIT-1, PLOT NO. 1-12, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUNIGAL-572126, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT (CORP AFFAIRS AND IR) 6. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S PRISM JOHNSON LIMITED H AND R JOHNSON (INDIA) DIVISION, (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956) UNIT-1, PLOT NO. 1-12, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUNIGAL-572126, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (HR AND ADMIN) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. K.R.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.S.B.Siddeswara Swamy, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.P.Yoganna, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri.K.R.Anand counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared in person. 2. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No.Kaa E 224 I D M 2025 dated 04.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent at Annexure-G and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refer the dispute for adjudication to the jurisdictional Labour Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) Issue any other appropriate order or orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 4. Sri.Siddeswara Swamy, counsel for the petitioner in presenting his argument strenuously urged that the workman raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer, alleging that he was forced to sign the VSS scheme, which amounts to termination; when the statement of the workman and the management was in dispute, the Government ought to have considered as an industrial dispute and referring a dispute for adjudication. He argued by saying that there is no provision restricting the period for raising the dispute under the ID Act. The Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its power under the ID Act to pass an order of reference for adjudication. Urging other contentions, he submitted that the endorsement may be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed. 5. By way of reply to this contention, Sri.K.R.Anand and AGA justified the action on the part of the Government. They argued by saying that the stale dispute cannot be a subject matter of reference under Section 10 of I.D. Act. The power under Section 10 of the I.D. Act to refer a dispute for adjudication should not be exercised in respect of stale claims. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 They submitted that the petitioner was seeking a reference three years after accepting voluntary retirement. Urging other contentions, they prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with utmost care. 7. The issue revolves within a narrow compass and relates to the refusal to refer the dispute for adjudication. 8. This is an interesting case of a claim raised by a former employee regarding his retirement scheme, long after the cessation of his employment relationship and acceptance of benefits. As we all know that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, popularly known as VRS, is the process by which the workmen voluntarily end their employment relationship. There will be a Cessation of the Employer-Employee Relationship, i.e., upon the acceptance of the VRS and associated benefits, the legal jural relationship between the employer and employee generally comes to an end. The legal principle of Aprobate and Reprobate generally prevents a person from taking inconsistent positions; one cannot accept benefits under a scheme (VRS) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 and then later challenge its validity or claim ongoing employee status. 9. Reverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner voluntarily retired and accepted associated benefits. Strangely, after a lapse of almost three years, he raised a dispute alleging a forceful resignation. The government refused to order a reference. In my view, the refusal to refer the dispute is based on germane and relevant considerations. The reference for adjudication cannot be made without satisfying the precondition of an existing or apprehended industrial dispute. In the complete absence of an existing or at least "apprehended" industrial dispute, the government cannot pass an order of reference of a faded dispute for adjudication. The petitioner accepts the benefits of a transaction (VRS package) and then challenges its validity later. By accepting the full settlement, the petitioner is deemed to have waived all previous or pending claims. The underlying legal principle is that while the law of limitation does not strictly apply to these proceedings, the government must still determine if a dispute is a "live" or "existing" dispute, keeping in mind that very stale - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 claims are generally not encouraged or allowed due to the unsettling effect on employers' financial arrangements. The Government can refuse to refer a dispute if it is considered "stale" or has faded due to a long, unexplained lapse of time. The rationale is to avoid unsettling the employer's financial arrangements and ensure industrial peace. A formal way to state that the government cannot refer a claim for adjudication after a significant, unexplained delay is to say the government may not refer a stale dispute or stale claim for adjudication, as the dispute would be considered to have faded with the efflux of time. 10. A workman who opts for voluntary retirement and accepts all monetary benefits generally cannot seek a reference for an industrial dispute related to their retirement. This is because the voluntary retirement constitutes a full and final settlement, severing the employer-employee relationship by mutual consent and waiver of future claims. This is a perfect example of a stale and non-existent dispute and a remarkable instance of a stale and non-existing dispute raised by a workman three years after voluntarily retiring and accepting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 associated benefits. The government is within its discretion to decline the reference for adjudication. 11. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government, in exercising its power of reference under Section 10 of the Act, lacks the jurisdiction to definitively determine whether the dispute is stale or time-barred at that initial stage. This contention must necessarily fail. The reason is simple. The administrative authority of the government includes the preliminary power to assess whether a matter is a bona fide industrial dispute and has not faded with the efflux of time, thus allowing it to decline reference on grounds of staleness or lack of an existing dispute. In the present case, the government is justified in declining the reference. 12. To conclude, I can say only this much that the petitioner’s claim is patently frivolous and does not merit adjudication. The petition is devoid of merit. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35583 WP No. 27031 of 2025 Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27