- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 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. 1583 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. H.MAHADEVA, S/O. HOMBALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, C BLOCK, BELAGOLA, PALAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 SHRIRANGAPATTANA, 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 21.01.2026. 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: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 The second respondent initially entered the service of the petitioner’s company as a Badli workman. He remained absent from duty without authorization, failed to seek leave or permission, and furnished no explanation for his absence. He did not disclose his whereabouts nor communicate any willingness to continue employment. In consequence, the petitioner issued successive notices calling upon him to attend counselling sessions and explain his absence. 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 IID No. 86 of 2020. By the Award dated 07.03.2024, 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 - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 petitioner referred him to the company doctor, who opined that a detailed medical assessment by a competent government medical authority was necessary. 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 conduct the examination 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 - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 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. 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. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 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 employment. The Labor Court, Mysuru, in IID No. 86 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 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 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 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 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010029322026 NC: 2026:KHC:37569 WP No. 1583 of 2026 granting permission to prosecute the petitioner vide Annexure- Q 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. No further relief is warranted. 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 PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62.1