Allowed¶81

Parle Workers Union v. Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025WA/472/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench allows Parle Workers Union writ appeals WA 472/2024 and 481/2024; sets aside Single Judge order dated 19.02.2024 quashing State Government reference under S.10(1)(c) ID Act regarding legality of lockout declared by M/s Parle Products on 22.08.2011 and the workers' strike; holds industrial dispute exists, post-closure relief possible, reference to be decided on evidence; parties to appear before Labour Court on 12.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB.

What did the court decide?

Both writ appeals allowed; the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 19.02.2024 in W.P.No.12702/2012 connected with W.P.No.28183/2013 set aside; parties directed to appear before the Labour Court on 12.11.2025; Labour Court requested to conclude the proceedings preferably within six months. ¶81

Parle Workers Union Vs Government of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶81

Issue for consideration

Whether the lockout declared by the management of M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd on 22.08.2011 was legal and justified (Point 1 of the reference). +4 more

¶60

Court's answer

If the lockout is found by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to be illegal, the consequences would follow, and the subsequent closure of the factory (2013) would not come in the way of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal granting relief.

¶80

Ratio / Principle

There does exist an industrial dispute which has to be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

¶81

Key takeaways

The High Court ought not to have interfered with the proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.ratio¶81
The judgment and order of the learned Single Judge are set aside, and the parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 12.11.2025.ratio¶81
If the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds the lockout just and proper because the workers went on strike unjustifiably, no relief would be granted; the reference has to be answered only after the workers' union and the management lead their respective evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (D K Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju JJ) allowed W.A. Nos. 472 and 481 of 2024 filed by the Parle Workers Union and set aside the learned Single Judge's order dated 19.02.2024 (in W.P.No.12702/2012 c/w W.P.No.28183/2013), by which the State Government's reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act concerning the lockout declared by M/s Parle Products on 22.08.2011 and the workers' strike had been quashed as mechanical. Held: an industrial dispute does exist and must be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal; the High Court ought not to have interfered; the subsequent closure of the factory (09.09.2013) would not preclude relief if the lockout is found illegal; the reference must be answered on evidence led by the parties. Parties directed to appear before the Labour Court on 12.11.2025; proceedings to be concluded preferably within six months; observations not binding on the Labour Court.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2024 (L-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2024 (L-RES)

¶10

IN WA No. 472/2024:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PARLE WORKERS UNION REG. NO.D.R.T (B-3) 10/2010-1125, 4^TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT NAGASHETTY HALLI, BANGALORE-560094 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶18

M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD 15 K.M. STONE, TUMKUR ROAD (N.H.NO.4) BANGALORE-560073

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

REPRESENTED BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI, FACTORY MANAGER.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING, 1961 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.02.2024 IN W.P.NO.12702/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶26

IN WA NO. 481/2024:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

PARLE WORKERS UNION REG NO. D.R.T. (B-3) 10/2010-1125, 4^TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BANGALORE-560094 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶29

…APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR , VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶33

M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD 15, K.M. STONE, TUMKUR ROAD (N.H.NO.4) BANGALORE-560073 REPRESENTED BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI FACTORY MANAGER.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶38

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP No.28183/2024 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.02.2024 IN WP No.28183/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶39

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶41

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶42

ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT

¶43

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶44

In both the writ appeals, the judgment and order

¶45

dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.12702/2012 connected with W.P.No.28183/2013 are impugned. It appears that the workers of respondent No.2-Management went on a strike demanding reinstatement of the workers who were suspended by the Management. As the workers had gone on strike, the

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

management had declared the lockout on its factory situated in Bangalore. The question as to whether the lockout of the factory declared on 22.08.2011 was just and legal and whether the workers were justified in going on a strike are the questions, which have been referred by the

¶49

State Government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 (for short, ‘ID Act,1956’).

¶50

The terms of reference dated 10.04.2012 made

¶51

by the State Government referring the dispute to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, which reads as under:

¶52

“Order

¶53

Government of Karnataka is of the opinion that there is an industrial dispute between the Management of M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd. and the Workers in regard to the workers going on strike and it is necessary to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication.

¶54

Therefore exercising power under the rule of Industrial dispute act 1947 (central 14, 1947) 10th case Para (1) sub-case (c)(d) Government of Karnataka has referred this dispute to the 1st Additional labour court Bengaluru for

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶56

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

adjudication and to give judgment on the dispute within a period of six months.

¶59

Points of Reference:-

¶60

1. Are the actions of the Management Ms Parle Product Pvt Ltd Bangaluru, president, Parle Workers union No.25, 4th cross, Byrappa layout Nagashettihalli, Bengalore in declaring a lock out of the factory on 22-08-2011 legal and justified?

¶61

2. Are the actions of the Parle Workers Union No.25, 4^th cross, Byrappa layout Nagashettihalli, in going on strike from 2208.2011, demanding to take back the suspended workers legal and justified?

¶62

3. If so, what compensation are the workers entitled to?”

¶63

3. Challenging the said terms of reference, the

¶64

management and workers had filed two writ petitions as mentioned above in the impugned order.

¶65

The learned Single Judge has held that the management had closed the factory on 09.09.2013 and assailing the said order, the union had preferred a writ petition before this Court, which is pending consideration. The reference made by the Government was in

¶66

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

mechanical manner, as there was no dispute that required

¶69

to be referred for adjudication. It was also said that the State Government had formed an opinion about the strike. The strike mentioned in the reference was a technical mistake. The writ petition filed by the management has been allowed and filed by the workers union has been dismissed. Thus, the reference has been set aside.

¶70

appellant/workmen's union has submitted that whether the management has declared a lockout on its factory on 22.02.2011 and whether the lockout was just, legal, proper in accordance with the law or not, is an industrial dispute, which can be decided only by the Labour Court or

¶71

the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be under the provisions of the ID Act, 1957. Whether the strike called on by the workers demanding the revocation of suspension of the workmen was justified or not is also an industrial dispute and therefore, the Government, after considering the facts and circumstances of the cases, has made the

¶72

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Dispute in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act, 1947. The High Court should not ordinarily interfere with the proceedings before the Labour Court. The point of reference requires to be answered only by leading the evidence by the parties. At the initial stage of reference when the industrial dispute does exist it should not be interdicted by the High Court.

¶75

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/management has submitted that as the factory was closed down in the year 2013, the reference for adjudication was unwarranted regarding the lockout and it would be a futile exercise as no effective relief can be granted to the workmen.

¶76

We can not subscribe to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the

¶77

respondent/management inasmuch as if the lockout is found by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to be illegal,

¶78

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

the consequences would follow and the subsequent event of closure of the factory would not come in the way of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal granting the relief, if it finds that the lockout was illegal. If the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the lockout was just and proper, as the workers had gone on strike unjustifiably, then only no relief would be granted. We are of the view that the reference has to be answered only after the parties, i.e., the workers' union and the management, lead their respective evidence.

¶81

In view thereof, we held that there does exist an industrial dispute which has to be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the proceedings before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside the judgment and order and direct the parties to appear before the Labour Court on 12.11.2025 .

¶82

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB WA No. 472 of 2024 C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

We request the Labour Court to expedite the

¶85

proceedings, and finalize the same, preferably within a period of six months.

¶86

Any observations made herein or by the learned Single Judge are confined only to the decisions, the writ petitions, and the writ appeals, which will not be binding on the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

¶87

All the contentions of the parties are left to be advanced to be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

¶88

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶89

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶90

GJM

¶91

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Parle Workers Union v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parle Workers Union v. Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raju Vs Sri L Shankar

Sri.Sageer Ahmed Noorulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Venugopal Reddy Vs the Chairman of Karnataka Land Grabbing

Smt.Manjula H N Vs Principal Secretary

Sri Narendra Since Deceased Vs the Management of Hal