Allowed

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom) v. G Shivappa

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2025WP/6112/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by BESCOM against an Industrial Tribunal order rejecting a motion to reopen cross-examination. The court set aside the impugned order, permitting the second party to cross-examine workmen witnesses on the next hearing date subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 cost to the first party.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the application for cross-examination is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to cross-examine the witness on payment of Rs. 10,000 cost befor

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2023 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM), HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M, KOLAR.

¶9

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O AND M DIVISION, BESCOM, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY MS. K. KOMALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

G. SHIVAPPA, S/O SRI. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DOOMA LAYOUT CIRCLE, KEB LAYOUT, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶16

SRI. D. NAGARAJ S/O SRI. DHUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARUTHI DRIVING SCHOOL, KEELUKOTE, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶17

SRI. S.N. SUNIL KUMAR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GY KRISHNAN HOUSE, GALPETE, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶21

SRI. G.K. MUNIRAJU S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT GADIGEDANAHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶22

SRI. A. MUNIRAJU S/O SRI. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT C/O VILLAVENKATAPPA, KEELUKOTTE, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶23

SRI. D. SHANKAR, S/O SRI. M. DUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARUTHI DRIVING SCHOOL, KEELUKOTE, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶24

SRI. LATE A.N. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, (i) PAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE A.N. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MANIGANIHALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135.

¶25

SRI. B. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O SRI. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

SRI. N. GANESH S/O SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, BESCOM COLONY, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶29

SRI. P.C. RAJANAND S/O SRI. CHAKKARLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT POOVANDANAHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶30

SRI. N. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, HAROHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE FOR

¶33

R1 TO R6, R7 & R8 TO R11)

¶34

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ID NO.131/2016 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 SEEKING THE LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RE-OPEN THE STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF FIRST PARTY AND PERMIT THE SECOND PARTY TO CROSS EXAMINE WORKMEN WITNESS-1 PRODUCED IN THE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET AT ANNX-A AND ETC.,

¶35

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

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Shri S.B.Mukkannappa, learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.7.

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶43

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.131/2016 wherein the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is rejected and thereby the petitioner could not cross-examine the first party witness. It is noticed that examination-in-chief of W.W.1 was recorded on 17.08.2017 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions for cross-examination of the said witness. Despite sufficient opportunity being given to the second party, the witness was not cross-examined. Thereafter, the Labour Court ordered that cross-examination is "taken as nil". Thereafter, the application is filed to recall the said order and to re-open the case. The workmen filed objections to the said application. The objection was accepted and the application was dismissed.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that though there is fault on the part of the second party in not cross-examining the witness, the application is filed to reopen the case and to cross-examine the witness to enable the second party to contest the case on merit. However, the said application is rejected erroneously. It is submitted that if the case is not reopened, the second party will not be in a position to effectively defend the dispute raised.

¶47

Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that examination-in-chief was conducted in the year 2017 and despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the second party, unnecessarily, second party has taken adjournment and rightly, the Industrial Tribunal has closed the evidence and since the application is not supported by valid reason, rightly rejected the same.

¶48

This court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶49

It is noticed from the record that the workmen have raised a dispute relating to regularization of their employment.

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

The petitioners before this Court who are the second party before the Tribunal have raised a defence that workman is not entitled for regularization. Considering the nature of relief sought, this court is of the view that in case, if the second party is not permitted to cross-examine the witness, the second party would be put to disadvantage in defending the matter. Under these circumstances, the order has to be set aside on terms.

¶53

Since it is the second party who has taken unreasonably long time to cross-examine the witness, the second party has to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to first party. The payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- is a condition precedent to cross-examine the witness.

¶54

In the result, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶57

ii) The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-A), on I.A.No.VI in I.D.No.131/2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside;

¶58

iii) The application filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal at I.A.No.VI is allowed;

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

iv) The petitioner/second party is permitted to cross-examine the witness subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the first party.

¶63

v) The cost shall be paid before the next date of hearing and the cross-examination shall take place on the same day.

¶64

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶65

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom) v. G Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom) v. G Shivappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

At and S India Pvt. Ltd. Vs General Secretary at and S India Pvt. Ltd.

The Area Manager Vs the Chief Deputy Labour Commissioner

Rajaram Vs M P Govindappa

The Workmen of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. Vs the Government of India

C.Pandiyaraj Vs the Management of M/S East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd.

M/S. Sstella Silks Limited Vs Zilla Powerloom and Handloom Workers Union