- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 8499 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD., BANGALORE COMPLEX, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 013, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER (HRM) MR. KARTHIK.K.R. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAYAPPA Y HADAGALI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1(A) SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O SRI CHINNAIAH, SINCE DEAD, BY LRS SMT.BHARATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA 1(B) MRS.M.MEENAKSHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, D/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA 1(C) MR.M.ARUN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 1(D) MR.M.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE.MUNIYAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.14A, B T PURUSHOTHAM LAYOUT, I MAIN ROAD, ABBIGERE F BUS STOP, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 090. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MUKKANNAPPA.S.B., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 05.01.2021 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ID NO.09/2012, AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) The employer - HMT Machine Tools Limited is before us in this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Award dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 05.01.2021 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Bengaluru1 in ID No.09/2012. 2. Under the impugned award, the CGIT directed the petitioner - employer to pay Retrenchment Compensation to the original respondent Muniyappa as per the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, along with interest @ 12% to be calculated in respect of the period from 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011 in a time bound manner, else the same shall carry future interest @ 6% per annum, over and above 12%. 3. Heard, Sri.Rayappa Y.Hadagali, learned counsel appearing for the employer and Sri.Mukannappa.S.B, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of deceased original employee. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: 1 'the CGIT', for short 2 'I.D Act', for short - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 It is the claim of the original respondent - Muniyappa that he joined with the petitioner on 27.10.1981 as casual worker on daily wage basis and transferred to Sewerage Department in the year 1983 and worked there up to 1986. In the year 1990, he was transferred to HTC Department. The nature of work is permanent in HTC Department. On 08.07.1992, the original respondent was terminated from service, however his juniors were allowed to continue and no termination compensation was paid. 5. Aggrieved by the illegal termination, the employee raised an industrial dispute before the State Labor Court in Reference No.89/1995 which concluded in an award dated 08.09.2004 directing the petitioner - employer to reinstate the original respondent with continuity of service. The said award has been implemented and the employee was reinstated and posted to work in R.D Department as a Fitter. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 6. His service was utilized as Helper and he continuously worked with the petitioner employer doing the work of permanent nature. Though he is a permanent employee, his service was not regularized. Some similarly situated persons raised an industrial dispute for regularization of their services. While the same was pending in Reference No.16/1999 before the Industrial Tribunal, the employer entered into a settlement with 106 workers and 83 of them were regularized and were put on training for a period of one year and thereafter absorbed as permanent employees. However the original respondent was continued as a daily wager. 7. The employee raised an Industrial dispute in ID No.206/2006, but reference was rejected on the ground that the employee cannot be ordered for regularization on the basis of the Award passed in I.D No.18/1995, thereafter he was orally terminated with effect from 27.08.2011 without any prior notice or notice pay or compensation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 8. It is the further claim of the original respondent that his salary for the month of July - August 2011 was not paid as on the date of his oral termination and the termination is contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment order and against the principles of natural justice. He further claimed that he worked continuously from 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011. His termination amounts to illegal retrenchment for non-compliance of provision of Section 27-F of the I.D Act and sought appropriate relief. 9. Upon notice, the petitioner - employer appeared and filed statement of objections admitting that the original respondent was engaged as casual labor on 27.10.1981, he was discontinued due to non-availability of work, however as per the Award passed in Reference No.89/1995 he was reinstated and engaged as casual laborer by paying minimum wages without any consequential benefits. The dispute raised by the employee in ID No.206/2006 seeking regularization was concluded in rejection and the said award is binding on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 him. On this contended that the same prayer of regularization again does not arise and the same amounts to resjudicata. It is the specific contention of the employer that the work allotted to the employee was purely casual in nature and the same was allotted whenever there is exigency of work. Therefore submits that reference itself is not maintainable and sought to dismiss the same. 10. The employer examined two of its officers as its witnesses and produced one document i.e., award marked in ID No.206/2006 as Ex.M1. Both the witnesses reiterated the contentions raised by the employer in the statement of objections. Whereas, the original employee examined himself as a witness and produced twelve documents marked as Ex.W1 to W12. 11. The CGIT records that MW.1 during his cross- examination admits that the original employee was appointed as casual labor on 27.10.1981 and transferred to Sewerage Department in the year 1983 and worked - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 there till 1986, his daily wages has been increased from initial rate of Rs.6/- per day to Rs.12/- per day, and then to Rs.22/- per day and as per the Award in CR No.89/1995 he was reinstated and posted to R & D Department. 12. The CGIT further observed that during the cross-examination of MW.2, he came with a new version that the employee worked upto 2006, however he could not specify the date on which his service was discontinued. He expressed his helplessness to produce the Muster Roll on the count that the said Muster Roll were maintained only for 8 to 10 years, however he admits that since the employee was litigating from 2006, probably his Muster Roll may be available. It is further observed by the CGIT that the said witness has further improved the case of the employer by stating that a notice was issued to the workman about dropping him from service. The CGIT further observed that the employee in his cross- examination admitted that on dismissal of his petition i.e., - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 I.D 206/2006, he was not permitted to work anymore with the employer. 13. After appreciation of the evidence, the CGIT was of the opinion that the refusal of work to the petitioner amounts to illegal termination and in view of the identity of employee and his engagement as casual/ daily wager is not disputed in all probability, the employee worked with effect from 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011 till the dispute raised comes to be rejected. However on the count that the employer being the public sector undertaking having its own Recruitment Rules cannot be shouldered with the burden of reinstating the casual worker whose service is not required for them and even on the premise that the employee is at the verge of retirement as he has already crossed age of 55 years, however for non- compliance of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D Act, the refusal of employment amounts to illegal retrenchment, the same was addressed by awarding monetary compensation instead of reinstatement. Accordingly, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 directed the employer to pay Retrenchment Compensation for the period 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011 along with interest @ 12% per annum. It is this order passed by the CGIT is called in question before us in this Writ Petition. 14. Sri.Rayappa Y.Hadagali, tried to persuade us on the count that the award passed by the CGIT is improper and is liable to be set-aside as the same is against the law, facts and probabilities of the case and material on record. The prayer sought in the claim petition was for reinstatement by setting aside oral termination, however the CGIT by the impugned order directed the employer to pay the Retrenchment Compensation in terms of the provisions of the I.D Act. 15. He further contended that the relief which is not sought cannot be granted. In these circumstances, the CGIT has exceeded its power and jurisdiction and erred in granting the relief which is not asked for or prayed for by - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 the employee, as such the impugned award is liable to be quashed. 16. Learned counsel also submits that the service of the respondent was not permanent in nature and was purely on casual basis whenever there is exigency occurs. He was earlier terminated and again reinstated in terms of the award passed in Reference No.89/1995 in the year 2004 without any backwages or consequential benefits. The respondent was paid his wages till 27.08.2011 which is not in dispute. However, the Tribunal without appreciating this aspect of the matter directed the employer to pay Retrenchment Compensation from 27.10.1981 to 27.08.2011. 17. He also submits that the respondent has not worked for almost 12 years 1992 to 2004 and not entitled to enjoy any kind of benefits without serving the organization. The CGIT has failed to consider this aspect of the matter. He has raised a specific contention that the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 employer Company is declared as a sick company and is not only under severe financial crunch but also unable to pay salaries to its on role employees. With this, he sought to allow the Writ Petition. 18. Sri.Mukannappa, argued in support of the order passed by the CGIT and sought to dismiss the Writ Petition. 19. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the CGIT having considered the peculiar facts involved in the case and for the non- compliance of provisions of the I.D Act, which is not seriously in dispute by the petitioner in this petition awarded Retrenchment Compensation under Section 25-F for the period stated in the impugned order with 12% interest in a time bound manner, if there is any default, with future interest of 6%. 20. The Retrenchment Compensation is calculated in terms of the provisions which would be a meager sum - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19453-DB WP No. 8499 of 2021 of compensation for a person who has served the organization since 1981 till 2011. The CGIT clearly notes the fact that to demonstrate that the engagement of original employee was on a need basis and not continuance, the employer has not produced any document to that effect and considering the peculiar facts stated supra, passed the order granting the relief of Retrenchment Compensation instead of reinstatement considering the age of the deceased original employee within the provisions of the I.D Act, which in our opinion does not call for any interference. In these circumstances, the petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7