- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1241 OF 2026 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. JK TYRE AND INDUSTRIES LTD., A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS FACTORY AT K.R.S. ROAD, METAGALLI, MYSURU-570016 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER - HR, IR AND EHS MR. JAGADEESH R., …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (ADMINISTRATION), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029. REPRESENTED BY AGA. 2. MR. MANJU C., S/O. JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.162, M.G. KOPPAL, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 HEBBAL, MYSURU - 570016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) 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.Prashanth.B.K., counsel for the petitioner; Sri.K.P.Yoganna., Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. An emergent notice to respondent No.2 was ordered on 27.01.2026. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. Respondent No.2 has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The brief facts are these: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 The second respondent entered the services of the petitioner company as a Badli workman. He remained absent from duty without prior permission. Thereafter, he remained on ESI leave. During this time, he neither reported for duty nor communicated his willingness to continue employment. Considering the nature of the Badli engagement, the petitioner removed his name from the master rolls. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner operated the plant with minimal manpower, continuing partial operations until December 2020. The second respondent, alleging refusal of work, raised an industrial dispute before the Labor Court, Mysuru, in I.I.D.No.88 of 2020. By the Award dated 02.04.2024, the Labor Court partly allowed his claim petition. Pursuant to the Award, the petitioner issued a memo directing the second respondent to report for duty in accordance with the stipulated terms. On reporting, it was found that he was not physically fit to resume duties. The petitioner referred him to the company doctor, who opined that a detailed medical assessment by a competent government medical authority was necessary. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 Accordingly, the petitioner approached the District Surgeon, Mysuru, and subsequently the Medical Superintendent, K.R. Hospital, Mysuru. The Directorate of Health and Family Services, Bengaluru, instructed K.R. Hospital to examine within 15 days. The Medical Superintendent certified that the second respondent was unfit to work in the tyre building and curing department, which required strenuous manual Labor. Invoking Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders, the petitioner discharged the second respondent from service, simultaneously paying wages from the date of operation of the Award until the date of discharge. Meanwhile, the second respondent filed a complaint before the first respondent Commissioner seeking implementation of the Labor Court Award. The petitioner filed objections thereto. The first respondent thereafter passed an order granting permission to prosecute the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, advancing several grounds. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 3. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard in detail, and the record has been carefully reviewed. 4. The following points arise for determination. 1. Whether the second respondent, having remained absent without authorization and failed to communicate his willingness to continue employment, was justified in alleging refusal of work by the petitioner. 2. Whether the petitioner, after the Labor Court Award, acted in compliance with the Award in calling upon the second respondent to report for duty. 3. Whether the medical examination and certification declaring the second respondent unfit to discharge duties in the tyre building and curing department justified the petitioner’s action under Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders. 4. Whether the order of the first respondent Commissioner granting permission to prosecute the petitioner is sustainable in law. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated. The issue falls within a narrow compass. The second respondent remained absent without authorization, failed to furnish an explanation, and did not communicate his willingness to continue - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 employment. The Labor Court, Mysuru, in IID No. 88 of 2020, partly allowed the claim petition of the second respondent. Pursuant to the Award, the petitioner issued a memo directing the second respondent to report for duty. On reporting, he was found medically unfit. The medical authorities, including the Medical Superintendent, K.R. Hospital, certified that the second respondent was unfit to perform strenuous manual Labor in the tyre building and curing department. The petitioner discharged the second respondent under Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders, simultaneously paying wages from the date of operation of the Award until the date of discharge. The first respondent Commissioner, despite the above facts, passed an order granting permission to prosecute the petitioner. The record demonstrates that the second respondent’s absence was unauthorized and unexplained. The Labor Court Award, though partly in his favor, required compliance by both parties. The petitioner, in adherence to the Award, issued a memo and permitted the second respondent to report for duty. Upon reporting, the second respondent’s physical incapacity to perform strenuous factory work was established - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 by competent medical authorities. The petitioner, bound by statutory obligations and workplace safety, could not assign duties to an unfit workman. Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders empowers the employer to discharge a workman found medically unfit, subject to payment of wages up to the date of discharge. The petitioner complied with this requirement. The order of the first respondent Commissioner granting permission to prosecute the petitioner overlooks the medical findings and the statutory framework. Such an order, therefore, suffers from legal infirmity. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order of the first respondent Commissioner dated:02.01.2026 granting permission to prosecute the petitioner vide Annexure- P is hereby quashed. The discharge of the second respondent from service under Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders, with payment of wages up to the date of discharge, is upheld. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029352026 NC: 2026:KHC:37700 WP No. 1241 of 2026 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, 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.: 71