Parle Workers Union Vs Government of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP No-39433/2013 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 02.09.2024 IN WP No-39433/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:1719-DB WA No. 1654 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶35

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

¶36

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant - Union impugning the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 39433/2013.

¶37

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

¶38

The petitioner-Union had challenged the order dated 03.08.2013 passed under Section 25 (O) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, I.D. Act) granting permission to respondent No.2 - the Management of M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., to close down the factory situated at 15 kilometre Stone, Tumkur Road, Bangalore. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order passed by the State Government granting permission for closing of the said factory by the Management.

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:1719-DB WA No. 1654 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

On the last date of hearing of this Writ Appeal i.e.,

¶43

18.12.2025, this Court passed the following Order which

¶44

reads thus:

¶45

" 1. After some arguments Ms. Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the past there were some discussions regarding the settlement of the dispute amicably between the workers and the Management.

¶46

2. Mr. S.S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2Management fairly submits that there were discussions and some amount was agreed for payment to the each workman. On suggestion of the Court, he stated that the Management would pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to each workman who was on employment when the order of closure was passed. This offer is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent if same is not accepted by the workers.

¶47

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she will take instructions.

¶48

Post this appeal on 12.01.2026."

¶49

Mrs. Maitreyi Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant

¶50

submits that the petitioner - Union has agreed to receive a sum of ₹ 2,00,000/- for each workman who was in employment when the order of closure was passed.

¶51

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1719-DB WA No. 1654 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Mr. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the management shall be paid on verification of credentials of each workman.

¶54

In view of the aforesaid stand of the parties, we direct the workmen concerned to approach the management for payment of ₹ 2,00,000/- to each one and on verification of the credentials, respondent No. 2 shall disburse the said amount to each workman within one month from today.

¶55

With the aforesaid modification, we uphold the order of the learned single judge impugned in this intra-Court appeal.

¶56

We make it clear that so far as the challenge to the order passed by the State Government under Section 25(O) of I.D. Act is concerned, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order but on concession for payment of ex gratia amount, we modify the order only to the extent of payment of ₹ 2,00,000/- to each of the workmen as ex gratia amount.

¶57