- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 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. 8896 OF 2026 (L-RES) BETWEEN: CADES STUDEC TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.11, 3RD CROSS, NEAR CBI OFFICE, GANGANAGAR NORTH, R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560032. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. VIVEK KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. YOGENDRA PRASAD, S/O. LATE YAMUNA SAH, RESIDING AT FLAT C1 25, ASHRIVAD RESIDENCY, LOTTEGOLAHALLI, BENGALURU-560094. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YOGENDRA PRASAD, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 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: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 ORAL ORDER Sri.Deepak Bhaskar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Yogendra Prasad - respondent party in person have appeared in person. 2. The captioned writ petition is filed seeking to quash the summons dated 12.12.2025 vide Annexure-A issued by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Bengaluru, and the proceedings in Application No.18/2025 vide Annexure-B pending before the Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Bengaluru. 3. The short facts are as follows: The petitioner is a private company and the respondent was employed as Accountant Executive, subsequently as a Manager - Finance until his superannuation on 3rd June, 2025. Upon attaining the age of 58 (fifty-eight) years, the respondent was retired in terms of the petitioner's established retirement policy. Aggrieved by the superannuation, the respondent approached the Assistant Labor Commissioner and primarily sought for compensation and entitlements such as gratuity, leave encashment and overtime charges by disputing the age - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 of superannuation. The Assistant Labor Commissioner by his order, advised the respondent to approach the appropriate forum. Pursuant thereto, the respondent approached the Labor Court and instituted the application seeking reliefs. The alleged claims are founded on the disputed questions relating to status "workman", the legality of retirement and determination of entitlement. It is stated that such issues cannot be sought under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, whereby the Labor Court is confined to compute amounts arising from a prior adjudication of settlement. Despite this, and in the absence, in particular, of any prior adjudication or settlement, capable of computation under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, the Labor Court as proceeded to entertain the application. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned application preferred by the respondent under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act is solely without jurisdiction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 Next, he submits that in a proceeding under Section 33C(2) of the Act, the Court cannot adjudicate the dispute of the entitlement or the basis of the claim, and it can only interpret the award or the settlement on which the claim is based. It has been vehemently contended that there has been no award or recognition of the respondent's alleged claim. No award has been passed, nor has there been any settlement. Urging additional contentions, counsel submits that the writ petition may be allowed. Per contra, the party in person submits that a detailed statement of objections has been filed, which may be duly taken on record. It is further contended that the Government issued Model Standing Orders on 27.03.2017; he attained the age of superannuation on 03.06.2025, and it is urged that the management ought to have adopted the said Model Standing Orders and continued him in service until the age of 60 years. Lastly, the party in person justified his action in filing the application under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 In reply, counsel for the petitioner contends that the company is governed by its own certified Standing Orders, which specifically stipulate the age of retirement as 58 years. It is further argued that only in the absence of such Standing Orders would the Model Standing Orders issued by the Government be applicable. In the present case, since the management already has its own Standing Orders in force, the contention of the respondent that the management ought to adopt the Government’s Model Standing Orders and thereby extend the age of superannuation to 60 years is untenable and cannot be sustained. 5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 6. The issue involved in the present case revolves within a narrow compass and relates to the initiation of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act by the respondent. Admittedly, there is no award or order to enable the respondent to approach the Labor Court for initiation of any proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 It is a settled principle that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable only when there exists an award or a pre-existing right capable of being enforced, the proceeding being like execution. In the present case, there is admittedly no award of the Labor Court which could enable the respondent to invoke Section 33C(2) of the Act. Consequently, the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act was not maintainable. It is evident that no prior award or order exists to sustain a grievance under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which functions like execution proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act. Upon careful examination of the averments contained in the application, it becomes clear that the Labor Court lacked the jurisdiction to issue a summons to the petitioner. In my considered view, the Labor Court has failed to consider the relevant factors and has, in fact, disregarded material elements essential to the proper exercise of its authority. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 The petitioner cannot invoke the Model Standing Orders, as it is governed by its own certified Standing Orders, which prescribe a retirement age of 58 years. It is a settled principle of law that the Model Standing Orders apply only in the absence of certified Standing Orders. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner has its own Standing Orders in force. Accordingly, the contention regarding the applicability of the Model Standing Orders is devoid of merit and must necessarily fail. For the foregoing reasons, the initiation of the entire proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act in Application No.18/2025 is liable to be quashed. 7. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The summons dated:12.12.2025 issued by the Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A and the proceedings in Application No.18/2025 vide Annexure-B are quashed. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35710 WP No. 8896 of 2026 Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58