Sri. Ani Prashanth B. N. Vs the Managementof M/S… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Ani Prashanth B. N. Vs the Managementof M/S… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court acted erroneously in listing the matter for recording evidence only on the additionally framed issue instead of on all issues already framed. +1 more

Court's answer

There is no need to interfere with the order passed on I.A.No.4 (framing the additional issue), since the petitioner has already led evidence on all issues and the respondent's counsel has no objection to evidence being adduced on all issues.

Ratio / Principle

This Court cannot interfere with the order on I.A.No.5, because the documents sought were destroyed after the dismissal of that application.

Key takeaways

It is made clear that the respondent is also required to establish that the petitioner, after being designated as Supervisor, was made to work as Supervisor and not as a workman.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde), W.P. No. 34209 of 2024 (L-RES), decided 10.06.2025 — Writ petition DISPOSED OF. A petitioner whose designation was changed from workman to Supervisor, but who claimed to have continued doing a workman's work, challenged under Articles 226 and 227 two orders of the District Judge, Tumakuru (Labour Court) in I.D.No.10/2019: (i) the order dated 23.02.2023 allowing the respondent-management's I.A.No.4 framing an additional issue, after which the matter was listed for recording evidence only on that additional issue; and (ii) the order dated 18.03.2024 rejecting the petitioner's I.A.No.5 seeking direction to the respondent to produce records in its custody. The Court found no need to interfere with the I.A.No.4 order because the petitioner had in fact already led evidence on all issues and the respondent's counsel raised no objection. Interference with the I.A.No.5 order was ruled out because the records stood destroyed after that dismissal (respondent producing minutes of meeting dated 09.09.2024 and a destruction certificate dated 22.11.2024). The Court, however, made clear that the respondent remains bound to establish that the petitioner, though designated Supervisor, was made to work as Supervisor and not as a workman.

NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 34209 OF 2024 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI ANI PRASHANTH B. N, S/O SHRI NARASIMHAIAH L, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHINCHANA NILAYA, 10^TH 'A' CROSS, SARASWATHIPURAM, SSIT TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA - 572102.

…PETITIONER

(MISS AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TRIVENI AERONAUTICS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.126, ANTHRASANAHALLI, 2^ND PHASE, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, TUMKUR - 572106, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HR A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTHOSH NARAYAN S, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT MODIFYING THE ORDER DTD 23.02.2023 ON IA NO. IV OF THE LEARNED PRL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN ID 10/2019 (PRODUCED AS ANNX-J) BY DIRECTING MATTER TO BE POSTED FOR EVIDENCE ON ALL ISSUES AND NOT ADDL. ISSUE ONLY AND ETC.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the orders dated 23.02.2023 on I.A.No.4 and order dated 18.03.2024 passed on I.A.No.5 passed by the learned District Judge, Tumakuru in I.D.No.10/2019. In terms of the order dated 23.02.2023, I.A.No.4 is allowed framing an additional issue. I.A.No.5 is rejected wherein the petitioner sought direction against the respondent to produce certain documents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after framing additional issue on the application at I.A.No.4 filed by the respondent, the Labour Court directed the matter to be listed for recording evidence only on the additional issue instead of further issues already framed. Hence, it is contended that such an approach by the Labour Court is erroneous.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

HC-KAR

It is also submitted that the petitioner was a workman under the respondent and later his designation was changed as Supervisor and despite change of designation, the petitioner continued to do the work of a workman as directed by the employer. To establish this contention, petitioner moved an application to summon the records which were in the custody of the respondent.

The respondent - Company filed objection to the said application contending that the documents are not necessary for adjudication of the controversy and without appreciating the real question, the Labour Court erroneously dismissed the application for summoning the records. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition has to be allowed and consequently I.A.No.5 has to be allowed and the respondent has to be directed to summon the records mentioned in the said application and the evidence has to be led on all issues including the additional issue.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the respondent on the

other hand would contend that though the case was ordered to be listed for recording evidence on the additional issue (after framing the additional issue), the petitioner has led evidence on all the issues and as such the order has to be understood in the said context that the Labour Court has permitted the parties to lead evidence on all issues and not just on additional issue.

It is further submitted that the Writ Petition is filed seven months after the dismissal of the application for summoning the records and in the meantime, the respondent has destroyed the records as those records were not required to be maintained. Thus, he would submit that the respondent is not in a position to produce the records even if the petition is allowed.

In addition to that, learned counsel has also

produced the minutes of the meeting dated 09.09.2024 and also the certificate dated 22.11.2024 evidencing the

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

HC-KAR

destruction of records and would submit that the petition in so far as assailing order on I.A.No.5 is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of

reply would contend that the respondent is also having the burden to establish the contention that the petitioner was working as Supervisor and not as the workman and it has to established by producing documents and the burden is on the respondent.

Learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that the respondent would place on record evidence to show that after the petitioner was designated as Supervisor, work of Supervisor was extracted from the petitioner.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record.

On perusal of the impugned orders and records, it is noticed that though the Labour Court has listed the matter for recording evidence on additional issue, from the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:19624 WP No. 34209 of 2024

HC-KAR

petitioner has led evidence on all issues and learned counsel for the respondent has no objection for adducing the evidence on all issues.

Under these circumstances, there is no need to interfere with the order passed on I.A.No.4 which was filed to frame an additional issue.

As far as I.A.No.5 is concerned, since it is submitted that the documents are destroyed post dismissal of the application at I.A.No.5. This Court cannot interfere in the order on I.A.No.5. However, it is made clear that the respondent is also required to establish that the petitioner after being designated as Supervisor was made to work as Supervisor and not as workman.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13