The Management Of vs The General Secretary
2025 Latest Caselaw 9342 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The Management Of vs The General Secretary on 24 October, 2025

Bench: R Devdas, Pradeep Singh Yerur

                           -1-


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                        BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE JUSTICE R.DEVDAS

                          AND

       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

          REVIEW PETITION NO. 100126 OF 2022
                          C/W
          REVIEW PETITION NO. 100057 OF 2023


IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 100126 OF 2022

BETWEEN

THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.,
UNIT: HARIHAR POLYFIBERS,
KUMARAPATTANAM 581123,
RANEBENNUR TALUK, HAVERI DIST.
                                        ......PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAMOD N KATHAVI., SR. COUNSEL FOR
    SRI. GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI & D.M. MALLI., ADVOCATES)

AND

1.    THE GENERAL SECRETARY
      HARIHAR POLYFIBERS,
      EMPLOYEES UNION,
      KUMARAPATTANAM 581123,
      RANEBENNUR TALUK.
      HAVERI DIST.

2.    DEPUTY LABOUR
      COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION,
      BELGAVI-590001.
                            -2-


3.   ADDITIONAL LABOUR
     COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS),
     AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER
     THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEMENT,
     (STANDING ORDERS ACT), 1946,
     DAIRY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
     BENGALURU 560029
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S.L.MATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI., AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250/2021 AND ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.07.2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 100250/2021 AND ETC.

IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 100057 OF 2023

BETWEEN

1. SHRI SHABBER AHAMMED S/O ABDUL RAJAK SAB AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O. KESHAVA NAGAR, PATEL BADAWANE, HARIHAR, HARIHAR TQ, DIST. DAVANAGERE 577601.

2. MR. SYFULLA K.S. AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O KEB ROAD, NEAR OLD MOSQUE AT KODIYAL HOSPETE PO KUMARAPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

3. MR. BASAPPA N.C. AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE

R/O NEAR GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICE AT KODIYAL HOSPETE PO KUMARAPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

4. MR. UMESH K AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O C/O RAGHAVENDRA D HIG-47, KHB COLONY AMARAVATHI POST, TQ. HARIHAR DAVANAGERE DIST 577601.

5. MR. PRAKASH K AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O 2ND CROSS, BEHIND APJ KALAM SCHOOL KALIDAS NAGAR, HARIHAR-577601 DAVANAGERE DIST.

6. MR. BASAPPA H.H AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE, R/O NEAR BEERAPPA TEMPLE, HULIKATTI POST KARUR TQ., RANEBENNUR-581145 DIST HAVERI.

7. MR. CHANNAPPA K.H. S/O KARIYAPPA HUCHANNAVAR AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE, AT KODIYAL HOSPETE PO KUMARAPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

8. MR.NAGAPPA ANGADI S/O RAMAPPA ANGADI AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O AT POST MAKANUR TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

9. MR. HANUMANTHASA KATARE S/O RAMANNA KATARE

AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/I 1ST MAIN, 11TH CROSS, J.C. EXTENSION HARIHAR-577601, DIST DAVANAGERE.

10. MR. VEERABHADRAPPA N.M AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR BEERAPPA TEMPLE AT KAVALETTU POST KUMARAPATNAM-581123 DIST. DAVANAGERE

11. MR. CHOWGLE S.S. AGE 61 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/E NEAR BEERAPPA TEMPLE AT KAVALETTU POST KUMARAPATNAM-581123 DIST. DAVANAGERE

12. SMT. GOURAMMA W/O RAJAPPA ANWERI AGE 55 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD R/O SUNAGAR BEDI, BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE HARIHAR-577601, DIST. DAVANAGERE.

13. SMT. ANASUYUMMA W/O H.D.KARUR AGE 58 YEARS OCC: HOUSE HOLD R/O BALEKAYE, VIDYANAGARA C BLOCK 1ST CROSS, HARIHAR-577601 DIST. DAVANAGERE

14. MR. MANJUNATHAIAH T.M. S/O CHANNABASAIAH T AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O BEHIND RAJASHREE TALKIES MURKAL COMPOUND, HARIHAR-577601 DIST. DAVANAGERE.

15. MR. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O GUDDEPPA

AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O H.S. EXTENSION, 5TH MAIN, 16TH CROSS, HARIHAR-577601 DIST. DAVANAGERE.

16. MR. MOHAMMED AYUB S/O ABDUL RAHIM SAB AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O 38 OPP SKP MADARASA BEEDI LAYOUT, DAVANAGERE-577001.

17. MR. MAHESHWARAPPA V CHAKRASALI AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR KANADE AREA, KODIYAL HOSAPETE, POST KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUE, DIST HAVERI.

18. MR. RUDRACHARI MAYACHARI AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR MARADI, KENCHAMMA TEMPLE OLD MAKANUR-581123 TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI

19. MR. MANJUNATH NARAYAN NAIK AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O C/O PUTTANAGOWDA, RENUKA NILAYA KODIYAL HOSAPETE, POST KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI.

20. MR. RAVINDRA SHETTIGAR K AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O KODAVOOR VILLAGE-576108 UDUPI TQ AND DIST. UDUPI

21. MR. DAMODAR MASTI NAIK AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O ABBIJARRI ROAD, NEAR PRIMARY SCHOOL

AT POST TADRI 581326, TQ: KUMTA DIST. KARWAR

22. MR. MRUTHUNJAYA S/O HALAYYA AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O VIDYANAGAR 2ND CROSS KODIYAL HOSAPETE KUMARAPATNAM-581123 TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI.

23. MR. UJJAPPA B.M. S/O BASAPPA MAJJAGI AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O AT POST, CHALAGERI-581145 TQ. RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

24. MR. PALAGI H.R. S/O PALAGI RAMAPPA AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O VINAYAK NAGAR KODIYAL HOSPETE KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBEENUR DIST:HAVERI.

25. MR. SADANANDAPPA D. S/O. BASAPPA D AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O TUNGABHADRA NAGAR, KODIYAL HOSAPETE KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR DIST. HAVERI

26. MR. JAMAL SAB R S/O RAJA SAB AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/I 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KESHAVA NAGAR PATEL BADAVANE, HARIHAR-577601 DIST DAVANAGERE.

27. MR. CHANDRAPPA N S/O NAGAPPA AGE 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O KODIYAL HOSAPETE KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR DIST. HAVERI

28. MR. ATAULLA N. ABDUL GAFAR SAB AGE 62 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O TAHASILDAR ROAD NEAR AADIKAVERI TEMPLE HATTADAKERI, HARIHAR-577601 DIST. DAVANAGERE

29. MR. ANTONI S AGE 61 YEARS OSS RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O 3RD MAIN, 1ST CROSS KESHAVA NAGAR HARIHAR-577601, DIST. DAVANAGERE.

30. MR. KENCHAPPA M AGE 61 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR ANAND BALAWADI AT KAVALETTU POST KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBEMMUR, DIST HAVERI.

31. MR. SANJEEVA GOWDA B AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O BEHIND NALLUR BLDG, TUNGABHADRA BADAWANE KODIYAL HOSAPETE, KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI

32. MR. KALANDAR IBRAHIM SAB S/O IBRAHIM AGE 61 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O NEAR KEB KODIYAL HOSAPETE KUMARPATNAM-581123 TQ RANEBENNUR, DIST HAVERI

33. MR. PRAKASH MUDHOLU S/O VASUDEV AGE 61 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O ISHWAR NAGAR, 1ST CROSS SANMUKHA NILAYAM HANGAL-581104, TQ HANAGAL DIST HAVERI.

34. MR. MANJUNATHA RAO K.H AGE 60 YEARS OCC: RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O 426, VINAYAKA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN 8TH CROSS J.C. EXTENSION HARIHAR-577601 DIST DAVANAGERE.

...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.L.MATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S GRASIM INDUSRIES LTD., UNIT HARIHAR PLOY FIBERS KUMARPATNAM 581123, RANEBENNUR TQ, HAVERI DIST.

2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI

3. THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS) AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT (STANDING ORDERS) ACT, 1946, DIARY CIRCLE BANNERUGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560029.

...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAMOD N KATHAVI., SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI., AGA FOR R2 & R3)

THIS RP IS FILED U/O XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1974 AND ARTICLE 226 OF

THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PORTION AT SERIAL NO. V AS ALL THE REVIEW PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO FULL BACK WAGES AS THEY ARE RETIRED FROM THE SERVICE ON OR AFTER 17.03.2018 I.E. ON ORDER PASSED BY THE CERTIFYING OFFICER IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND HON'BLE JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

The original appellant in W.A.No.100250/2021 and the

contesting respondents, both have filed review petitions,

seeking to review the judgment dated 05.07.2022.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be

referred to as per their ranking before this Court in the Writ

Appeal viz., appellant and respondent.

3. The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in

W.P.No.106307/2018, raising a challenge to the certification

of the subject Standing Order passed by the competent

authority, enhancing the age of retirement of the employees

of the appellant-Industry, from 58 to 60 years. The writ

petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, upholding

the orders passed by the competent authority. This Court by

judgment dated 05.07.2022 dismissed the writ appeal while

directing the appellant to continue the workmen in its service

till they attain the age of 60 years in terms of amendment to

Clause-29 of the Certified Standing Orders w.e.f.

17.03.2018; to reinstate with continuity of service and full

backwages to such of the workmen who retired on or after

17.09.2021 i.e., the day on which W.P.No.106307/2018 was

dismissed; however, if such of the retirees, on medical

examination are found to be unfit for re-employment, they

shall be paid 50% of backwages for the period between the

date of their retirement and the date on which they are

called for medical examination; to pay 50% of the

backwages to such employees who retired from service on

attaining the age of 58 years on or after 17.03.2018 for the

period between the date of their retirement and the date on

which they attained 60 years or the date of death, whichever

is earlier etc.

4. The contesting respondents, more particularly, some

of the workmen who were not individually parties to the

proceedings before this Court have filed R.P.No.100057/2023

pursuant to leave being granted by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court to file a review petition, in terms of order dated

13.04.2023 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary

No.32366/2022. The said workmen are aggrieved of the fact

that this Court granted relief and financial benefit to the

workmen who had retired, by making two different

categories i.e., workmen who retired from service on or after

17.09.2021 i.e., the date of dismissal of the writ petition -

entitled to full backwages and whereas the other category

who retired after 17.03.2018 i.e., the date of the order

passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, amending the

Certified Standing Orders - entitled for 50% backwages.

5. In view of the liberty granted to the review

petitioners in SLP No.32366/2022, I.A.No.1/2023 filed by the

review petitioners in R.P.No.100057/2023 is allowed granting

permission to prosecute the case, although the petitioners

herein are not parties to the original writ petition or writ

appeal.

6. The original writ petitioner/appellant/management

have raised the ground that this Court has erroneously

concluded that the appellant is not classified as an industry

involving hazardous and dangerous operations. However, it

is contended by the appellant that Section 2(cb) of the

Factories Act, 1948, defines the term 'hazardous process' to

mean any process or activity in relation to any industry

specified in the First Schedule, where unless special care is

taken, raw materials used therein or in the intermediate or

finished products, by-products, wastes or effluents thereof

would cause material impairment to the health of the

persons engaged in or connected therewith, or result in the

pollution of the general environment. Attention of this Court

is drawn to First Schedule where at Sl.No.20, in the list of

industries involving hazardous processes is 'man-made fibre

(cellulosic and non-cellulosic) industry' and at Sl.No.6 is pulp

and paper (including paper products) industries. The

appellant M/s. Harihar Polyfibres (for short referred to as

'HPF'), is engaged in manufacture, distribution and sale of

Rayon grade pulp and therefore, it answers to the description

of hazardous process and is therefore, an hazardous

industry. Further, it is contended that the appellant's

manufacturing process involves chipping, cooking, washing

and bleaching, de-watering, chemical recovery and power

plant operation. It is contended that having regard to

dangerous operations, as provided in Section 87 of the

Factories Act, 1948, the appellant-industry is categorized as

Major Accident Hazard Unit by the Regulatory Machinery. It

is therefore submitted that since the judgment of this Court

has proceeded with a wrong assumption that the appellant-

industry is not certified as hazardous industry, the judgment

should be recalled, to enable reconsideration of the matter.

7. Moreover, this Court has not taken into consideration

the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad and

Ors. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. (1991) 1

SCC 4, which is holding the field. It has been held in

Barauni Refinery that settlement stipulating the terms and

conditions of service not changed under it shall remain

unchanged and operative for the period of settlement and

during the period of settlement the workers shall not raise

any demand (except for bonus) which would put additional

financial burden on the management. It was held that

settlement binding on all the workmen of the undertaking

and upward revision of age of superannuation would be

violative of the two stipulations of the settlement.

8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the

respondent-Union reiterates the grounds raised in the review

petitions, that there cannot be two categories to enjoy the

benefit flowing out of the judgment passed by this Court.

9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant

and learned Counsel for the respondents-Union, this Court is

of the considered opinion that two relevant grounds have

been raised at the hands of the appellant viz., that this Court

has proceeded on a wrong footing that the appellant-industry

is not certified as hazardous industry and this Court has not

considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

Barauni Refinery (supra). These arguments put forth

would qualify to meet the contention that there is an error

apparent on the face of the record. Further, the fact that the

appellant as well as the contesting respondent have both

sought for review, matter requires reconsideration.

10. In that view of the matter, the review petitions are

allowed. The judgment passed in W.A.No.100250/2021 is

hereby recalled and the appeal is restored to its original file.

Ordered accordingly.

11. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

JT/rv/DL CT: JL