Parle Workers Union vs Government Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 9541 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Parle Workers Union vs Government Of Karnataka on 29 October, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB
                                                              WA No. 472 of 2024
                                                          C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

                                              PRESENT
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                                 AND
                           THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
                               WRIT APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2024 (L-RES)
                                             C/W
                               WRIT APPEAL NO. 481 OF 2024 (L-RES)

                      IN WA No. 472/2024:

                      BETWEEN:

                      PARLE WORKERS UNION
                      REG. NO.D.R.T (B-3) 10/2010-1125,
                      4TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT
                      NAGASHETTY HALLI,
                      BANGALORE-560094
                      REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
                                                                    ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by   (BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location: High        AND:
Court of Karnataka

                      1.    GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
                            DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
                            VIKAS SOUDHA,
                            VIDHANA VEEDHI,
                            BANGALORE-560001
                            BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

                      2.    M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD 15
                            K.M. STONE,
                            TUMKUR ROAD (N.H.NO.4)
                            BANGALORE-560073
                            -2-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB
                                         WA No. 472 of 2024
                                     C/W WA No. 481 of 2024

HC-KAR




     REPRESENTED BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI,
     FACTORY MANAGER.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING, 1961 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.02.2024 IN W.P.NO.12702/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

IN WA NO. 481/2024:

BETWEEN:

PARLE WORKERS UNION REG NO. D.R.T. (B-3) 10/2010-1125, 4TH CROSS, BYRAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BANGALORE-560094 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

...APPELLANT (BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR , VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

2. M/S PARLE PRODUCTS PVT LTD 15, K.M. STONE, TUMKUR ROAD (N.H.NO.4) BANGALORE-560073 REPRESENTED BY SRI B. BALACHANDRA RAI FACTORY MANAGER.

...RESPONDENTS

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP No.28183/2024 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEF a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 19.02.2024 IN WP No.28183/2013 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

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

In both the writ appeals, the judgment and order

dated 19.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.12702/2012 connected with W.P.No.28183/2013

are impugned. It appears that the workers of respondent

No.2-Management went on a strike demanding

reinstatement of the workers who were suspended by the

Management. As the workers had gone on strike, the

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

management had declared the lockout on its factory

situated in Bangalore. The question as to whether the

lockout of the factory declared on 22.08.2011 was just and

legal and whether the workers were justified in going on a

strike are the questions, which have been referred by the

State Government to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal

under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1956 (for short, 'ID Act,1956').

2. The terms of reference dated 10.04.2012 made

by the State Government referring the dispute to the

Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal, which reads as

under:

"Order Government of Karnataka is of the opinion that there is an industrial dispute between the Management of M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd. and the Workers in regard to the workers going on strike and it is necessary to refer the industrial dispute for adjudication.

Therefore exercising power under the rule of Industrial dispute act 1947 (central 14, 1947) 10th case Para (1) sub-case (c)(d) Government of Karnataka has referred this dispute to the 1st Additional labour court Bengaluru for

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

adjudication and to give judgment on the dispute within a period of six months.

Points of Reference:-

1. Are the actions of the Management Ms Parle Product Pvt Ltd Bangaluru, president, Parle Workers union No.25, 4th cross, Byrappa layout Nagashettihalli, Bengalore in declaring a lock out of the factory on 22-08-2011 legal and justified?

2. Are the actions of the Parle Workers Union No.25, 4th cross, Byrappa layout Nagashettihalli, in going on strike from 22- 08.2011, demanding to take back the suspended workers legal and justified?

3. If so, what compensation are the workers entitled to?"

3. Challenging the said terms of reference, the

management and workers had filed two writ petitions as

mentioned above in the impugned order.

4. The learned Single Judge has held that the

management had closed the factory on 09.09.2013 and

assailing the said order, the union had preferred a writ

petition before this Court, which is pending consideration.

The reference made by the Government was in

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

mechanical manner, as there was no dispute that required

to be referred for adjudication. It was also said that the

State Government had formed an opinion about the strike.

The strike mentioned in the reference was a technical

mistake. The writ petition filed by the management has

been allowed and filed by the workers union has been

dismissed. Thus, the reference has been set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the

appellant/workmen's union has submitted that whether

the management has declared a lockout on its factory on

22.02.2011 and whether the lockout was just, legal,

proper in accordance with the law or not, is an industrial

dispute, which can be decided only by the Labour Court or

the Industrial Tribunal as the case may be under the

provisions of the ID Act, 1957. Whether the strike called

on by the workers demanding the revocation of suspension

of the workmen was justified or not is also an industrial

dispute and therefore, the Government, after considering

the facts and circumstances of the cases, has made the

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

reference to the Labour Court/Industrial Dispute in

exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act,

1947. The High Court should not ordinarily interfere with

the proceedings before the Labour Court. The point of

reference requires to be answered only by leading the

evidence by the parties. At the initial stage of reference

when the industrial dispute does exist it should not be

interdicted by the High Court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/management has submitted that as the

factory was closed down in the year 2013, the reference

for adjudication was unwarranted regarding the lockout

and it would be a futile exercise as no effective relief can

be granted to the workmen.

7. We can not subscribe to the submissions

advanced by the learned counsel for the

respondent/management inasmuch as if the lockout is

found by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal to be illegal,

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

the consequences would follow and the subsequent event

of closure of the factory would not come in the way of the

Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal granting the relief, if it

finds that the lockout was illegal. If the Labour

Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the lockout was just

and proper, as the workers had gone on strike

unjustifiably, then only no relief would be granted. We are

of the view that the reference has to be answered only

after the parties, i.e., the workers' union and the

management, lead their respective evidence.

8. In view thereof, we held that there does exist

an industrial dispute which has to be decided by the

Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, and the High Court ought

not to have interfered with the proceedings before the

Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, we set aside

the judgment and order and direct the parties to appear

before the Labour Court on 12.11.2025.

NC: 2025:KHC:43093-DB

HC-KAR

9. We request the Labour Court to expedite the

proceedings, and finalize the same, preferably within a

period of six months.

10. Any observations made herein or by the learned

Single Judge are confined only to the decisions, the writ

petitions, and the writ appeals, which will not be binding

on the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

11. All the contentions of the parties are left to be

advanced to be decided by the Labour Court/Industrial

Tribunal.

Sd/-

(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/-

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

GJM