- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 1162 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. N.PRASANNA, S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO.45, DODDA GARADI BEEDI, PALAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT -571606. …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 30.01.2026. 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: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 The second respondent entered the services of the petitioner company as a Badli workman. On 01.09.2017, while returning home from the factory, he met with an accident. Consequent thereto, he remained on ESI leave for the relevant period. 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 and remitted a cheque towards gratuity. The second respondent thereafter filed I.I.D. No. 87/2020 before the Labor Court, Mysuru, seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits. The Labor Court allowed the dispute by Award dated 02.04.2024. Pursuant to the Award, the petitioner issued a memo directing the second respondent to report for duty. He complied, but at the time of reporting, produced a Disability Certificate from the Medical Authority, Mandya, certifying 75% permanent disability in both legs. The petitioner referred him to the company doctor, who advised obtaining an administrative medical opinion from the certifying surgeon. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 District Surgeon for medical evaluation. Meanwhile, the second respondent approached the first respondent–Commissioner, seeking implementation of the Labor Court Award. The Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner then approached the Medical Superintendent, K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, who, in turn, directed a reference to the Directorate of Health and Family Services, Bengaluru. The Directorate instructed K.R. Hospital to examine within 15 days. The Medical Superintendent certified that the second respondent suffered 75% permanent disability and 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 paid the wages from the date of operation of the Award until the date of discharge. The petitioner filed objections to the complaint lodged by the second respondent. The first respondent thereafter passed an order granting permission to prosecute the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 Aggrieved, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition, urging several grounds. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has advanced detailed submissions. Heard and perused the papers with utmost care. 4. The following points arise for determination. 1. Whether the discharge of the second respondent from service by the petitioner company, after the Labor Court Award directing reinstatement, is legally sustainable in view of the medical disability certificate and Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders? 2. Whether the petitioner has complied with the Award of the Labor Court? 3. Whether the order of the first respondent–Commissioner, granting permission to prosecute the petitioner, is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case? 5. The facts are sufficiently stated. The issue falls within a narrow compass. The second respondent was a Badli workman who suffered an accident, resulting in 75% permanent disability of both legs. The Labor Court, Mysuru, allowed his claim petition and directed reinstatement. The petitioner issued a memo and permitted him to report for duty. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 Upon reporting, the second respondent produced a disability certificate. Subsequent medical evaluation by the Medical Superintendent, K.R. Hospital, Mysuru, confirmed that he was unfit to work in the tyre building and curing department. The petitioner, invoking Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders, discharged the second respondent, simultaneously paying wages due under the Award until the date of discharge. The first respondent thereafter granted permission to prosecute the petitioner, leading to the present writ petition. The petitioner has demonstrated compliance with the Labor Court Award by issuing a memo and permitting the second respondent to report for duty. However, the medical evidence unequivocally establishes that the second respondent suffers from 75% permanent disability and is unfit to perform the strenuous duties of tyre building and curing. Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders empowers the employer to discharge a workman who is medically unfit to continue in the assigned role. The discharge was accompanied by payment of wages due under the Award, thereby evidencing bona fide compliance. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 The subsequent order of the first respondent granting permission to prosecute the petitioner overlooks the fact that the discharge was based on medical incapacity duly certified by competent authorities. The petitioner’s action cannot be construed as non-implementation of the Award but rather as a lawful discharge under the Standing Orders. 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 dated 02.01.2026 granting permission to prosecute the petitioner vide Annexure-N is hereby quashed. It is declared that the petitioner has complied with the Award of the Labor Court by permitting the second respondent to report for duty and by paying wages due until the date of discharge. The discharge of the second respondent from service, based on medical unfitness certified by competent medical authorities and in terms of Clause 18 of the Certified Standing Orders, is upheld. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029382026 NC: 2026:KHC:37074 WP No. 1162 of 2026 7. Resultantly, 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 PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62