- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 18234 OF 2015 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/S INNOVATIVE TECHONOLOGIES SY NO.42/4, NO.2, 3RD B CROSS 2ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE - 560 073 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR S HARISH S/O I SOMASHEKAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASANAGOUDA S. SARATUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P.H., ADVOCATE) AND: ARMUGAM S/O LATE MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.1255, 9TH MAIN ROAD PRAKASH NAGARA BANGALORE - 560 021 …RESPONDENT (V/O/DTD 27/02/17 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS W.P.IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS AND QUASH ANNX-C AWARD DT. 14.10.2014 IN REF. NO.2/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, 1ST ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, HOLDING Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 THE SAME IS AGAINST LAW AND DISMISS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award dated 14.10.2014 in Ref.No.2/2013 on the file of I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the reference is partly allowed and the present petitioner is directed to reinstate the respondent. The award also directs continuity of service however, back wages is denied. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that when the dispute was raised, the respondent was 70 years old and he was never employed by the petitioner. The Labour Court did not appreciate the evidence placed on record and document pertaining to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 some other worker has been wrongly interpreted to hold that the respondent was employed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also refer to the amendment brought to the Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)(Amendment) Rules, 1961 to contend that the age of retirement cannot exceed 60 years and the respondent himself was aged 70 years when the dispute was raised. The Labour Court could not have directed the reinstatement, thus, would urge that the award has to be set aside. 4. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 5. It is noticed that the respondent who claimed to be workman under the employment of the petitioner has produced 16 documents in support of his claim. He has led evidence. He was not been cross-examined. The petitioner has not led any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the inference from the documents produced by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 respondent/workman. Under these circumstances, the contention that the respondent was not a workman under the petitioner cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has taken view that the respondent was working under the petitioner based on the oral and documentary evidence placed before it. 6. The Labour Court has also noticed that the petitioner has not cross-examined the workman and rebuttal evidence is not led by the petitioner. 7. It is noticed by the Labour Court that the Management/petitioner has filed affidavit of MW.1 by way of examination-in-chief, however, MW.1 has not subjected himself to the cross-examination and accordingly, the adverse inference is drawn against the petitioner. 8. Under the circumstances, the finding of the Labour Court that the respondent was working under the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 exercise of jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution of India. 9. As far as the contention relating to the age of the retirement is concerned, the petitioner has not produced any records to hold that the age of retirement of its employees would be 60 years or 58 years. This is noticed by the Labour Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to clause No.15-A of the 'Model Standing Orders' as provided in Schedule-I in the Karnataka Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Rules, 1961 to contend that the age of retirement cannot exceed 60 years. The Court is not convinced with the submission. The Clause No.15-A reads as under: "15-A. The age for retirement or superannuation of the workman may be 60 years or such other age as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman by any agreement, settlement or award which - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force." (Emphasis supplied) 11. From the aforementioned clause, it is evident that the age of retirement or superannuation of the workman may be 60 years or such other case, as may be agreed upon between the employer and the workman in terms of an agreement, settlement or award. The petitioner has not produced any such agreement, settlement or award relating to age of retirement from the language of aforementioned Clause 15-A, it is evident that there is no mandate to fix the age of superannuation at 60. It can be any age agreed between the employer and employee subject to approval by the Competent Authority. 12. Under these circumstances, the contention that age of retirement cannot exceed 60 years or 58 years cannot be accepted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015 13. The Labour Court has also noticed that the denial of employment with effect from 08.03.2011 is without any justification and directed reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court has not awarded any back wages. The respondent/workman has not assailed the part of the award denying back wages. 14. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the said award as no case is made out to interfere with the impugned award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39