Dismissed¶64

M/S Innovative Techonologies v. Armugam

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/18234/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement with continuity of service; back wages denied; Labour Court award Ref.No.2/2013 (14.10.2014) affirmed; writ petition under Articles 226/227 dismissed; workman's 16 documents and un-cross-examined evidence unrebutted; adverse inference against management as MW.1 avoided cross-examination; Clause 15-A Model Standing Orders, Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961 — superannuation not compulsorily 60 years, may be any mutually agreed age; retirement-age contention of employer rejected; scope of judicial interference under Article 227 in Labour Court awards.

What did the court decide?

The contention that the respondent was not a workman under the petitioner cannot be accepted; the Labour Court's finding that the respondent was working under the petitioner is not erroneous so as to warrant interference.

M/S Innovative Techonologies Vs Armugam — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, claiming to be a workman, was in fact employed by (working under) the petitioner, such that the Labour Court's finding of employment is erroneous. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

¶35

Ratio / Principle

The respondent-workman's evidence stood un-cross-examined and unrebutted: he produced 16 documents, led evidence, and the petitioner led no oral or documentary evidence against him, defeating the plea that he was never employed.

¶32

Key takeaways

Adverse inference was drawn against the petitioner-management because its witness MW.1, whose affidavit was filed as examination-in-chief, did not subject himself to cross-examination.ratio¶37
Clause 15-A of the Model Standing Orders imposes no mandate to fix superannuation at 60 years; the retirement age may be any age agreed between employer and workman by agreement, settlement or award, and as the petitioner produced no such records, the contention that retirement age cannot exceed 60 (or 58) years is rejected.ratio¶56
No case is made out to interfere with the impugned Labour Court award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; consequently the writ petition is dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.) dismisses a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the award dated 14.10.2014 in Ref.No.2/2013 of the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, which partly allowed the workman's reference and directed reinstatement of respondent Armugam with continuity of service (back wages denied). The Court upheld the finding of employment: the workman produced 16 documents and led evidence that was neither cross-examined nor rebutted by any oral or documentary evidence from the petitioner, and adverse inference followed from MW.1's affidavit going un-cross-examined. On retirement age, Clause 15-A of the Model Standing Orders (Schedule-I, Karnataka Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1961) fixes 60 years only as a permissible age, 'or such other age as may be agreed upon'; absent any agreement, settlement or award fixing retirement age, there is no mandate to retire workmen at 60 (or 58). Finding no ground for interference under Article 227, the petition was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 18234 OF 2015 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

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)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

THE SAME IS AGAINST LAW AND DISMISS THE CLAIM MADE BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

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.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

some other worker has been wrongly interpreted to hold that the respondent was employed by the petitioner.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also

¶28

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.

¶29

The Court has considered the contentions raised

¶30

at the Bar and perused the records.

¶31

It is noticed that the respondent who claimed to

¶32

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

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

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.

¶36

The Labour Court has also noticed that the petitioner has not cross-examined the workman and rebuttal evidence is not led by the petitioner.

¶37

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.

¶38

Under the circumstances, the finding of the

¶39

Labour Court that the respondent was working under the petitioner cannot be said to be erroneous to interfere in

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

exercise of jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution of

¶44

India.

¶45

As far as the contention relating to the age of

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

reads as under:

¶49

"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

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

may be bind on the employer and the workman under any law for the time being in force."

¶54

(Emphasis supplied)

¶55

From the aforementioned clause, it is evident

¶56

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.

¶57

Under these circumstances, the contention that age of retirement cannot exceed 60 years or 58 years cannot be accepted.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:335 WP No. 18234 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

The Labour Court has also noticed that the

¶62

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.

¶63

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.

¶64

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶65

Sd/-

¶66

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶67

PSJ

¶68

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

M/S Innovative Techonologies v. Armugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Innovative Techonologies v. Armugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Aswathnarayana Vs K P Vijaya

The Commissioner Vs the President

Sri Narayanappa Vs Sri Hanumanthappa

Smt Sakamma Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Principal Vs Manjunath

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S Gowri Hotels a Partnership Firm