- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010021042021 NC: 2026:KHC:42160 WP No. 14205 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 14205 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNA NAIKA, S/O. LATE METHYA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF BHOVI COLONY, KRISHNOJI COMPOUND, 1ST CROSS, UPPER HUTHA, BHADRAVATHI-577301. 2. M.S.GOPALAKRISHNA, S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.1655, 5TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, BHADRAVATHI, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577301. 3. SRI. NARESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. DODDA HANUMAIAH, RESIDENTS OF MUTHASANDRA VILLAGE, SWANDENAHALLI POST, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577308. 4. KARTHIK, S/O. SHANMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. 4TH CROSS, LEFT SIDE, HOSAMANE, SUBHASHNAGAR, BHADRAVATHI-577301. 5. SRI. H.R.KRISHNAPPA, S/O. ADDIGALU RANGAPPA, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010021042021 NC: 2026:KHC:42160 WP No. 14205 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. HONNAVILE VILLAGE, BIDARE, SHIMOGA-577301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KALEEMULLAH SHARIFF, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. DISTILLERIES COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL AREA, MACHENAHALLI NIDIGE POST, SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577301. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR J., ADVOCATE) 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.Kaleemullah Shariff, counsel for the petitioners, and Sri.Pradeep Kumar.J., counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The petition is filed to quash the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the Court of the Principal District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labor Court, Shivamogga, in I.D. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010021042021 NC: 2026:KHC:42160 WP No. 14205 of 2021 Application No.10(1)(c) No.3/2017, produced at Annexure-G, by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the award of the Labor Court is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case. He urges other grounds and prays for setting aside the award. Counsel for the respondent justified the award passed by the Labor Court and submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 6. It is noted from the records that, considering the communication from the Karnataka Pollution Control Board on 05.10.1993, there was a closure of the Management, and - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010021042021 NC: 2026:KHC:42160 WP No. 14205 of 2021 accordingly, a settlement was also entered between the Union and Management on 17.11.1994. Despite the settlement, the Government referred the dispute for adjudication 22 years later. The Labor Court considered the points for reference in detail and rightly rejected the reference, as the twenty-two- year time limit hopelessly barred it. Moreover, there was no rejection of employment; instead, there was closure, and the Union and the Management settled in 1994. The closure was not contested. The Labor Court is justified in finding an excessive delay. The Labor Court, after extensively referring to the material on record, rightly rejected the reference. 7. I find no infirmity in the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal 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.: 34