[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Management Of Bosch Ltd vs Mr Andrew C Shekaran K P on 2 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6976 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
MANAGEMENT OF BOSCH LTD.,
(THE COMPANY EARLIER KNOWN AS
MOTOR INDUSTRIES COMPANY LTD),
P.B NO.3000, HOSUR ROAD,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030,
REPRESENTED BY MR M GOPALAKRISHNA JOSHI,
SR GENERAL MANAGER-HR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT SUBHA ANANTHI K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR ANDREW C SHEKARAN K P,
EMP. NO.55533, MAJOR,
EX. EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
Digitally
signed by C 2. MR LEO BALARAJ S,
HONNUR SAB EMP.NO.70405, MAJOR,
Location: EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 3. MR RAMAKRISHNA RAO R,
EMP.NO.67892, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
4. MR GURURAJA,
EMP.NO.47831, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
5. MR VIJAYENDRA RAO,
EMP.NO.62591, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
-2-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
6. MR BRAMHA RAJU,
EMP.NO.51294, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
7. MR VINAYAKA MURTHY D,
EMP.NO.76044, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
8. MR ARUL DASS R S
EMP.NO.52523, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
DIED ON 25.05.2021
8(a) SMT JOSPHIN DASS,
W/O LATE R S ARUL DASS,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT OLD NO.09, NEW 07 SOPHS VILLA,
11TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, NEAR CLASSIC,
MANDRI APARTMENTS,
S.T.BED FRIENDS COLONY,
SRINIVAGILU VILLAGE, BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
9. MR RAMAKRISHNA H V,
EMP.NO.62586,MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
10. MR LAKSHMAIAH K R,
EMP.NO.58265,MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
11. MR DHANAPALA SETTY,
EMP.NO.68611, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
12. MR CHELLAPPAN K K,
EMP.NO.54814, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
13. MR NARAYANA B
EMP.NO.53966,MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
-3-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
14. MR BALASUBRAMANYAM K
EMP.NO.38991, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
15. MRS ESWARI M A,
EMP.NO.18983, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
DIED ON 12.02.2022.
15(a) MR.S SATHYANARAYANA,
S/O LATE ESWARI AND LATE R SUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, BOWEE LANE 'B' STREET,
ASHOK NAGAR, MUSEUM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
16. MR AROKIASWAMY K,
EMP.NO.19450, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
DIED ON 11.12.2018.
16(a) SMT A AROKIA SEELI,
W/O LATE K AROKIASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1089, AROKIYASEELI NILAYAM,
I CROSS, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT,
NEXT TO SRI SAGAR HOTEL, R S PALYA,
KAMMANAHALLI, M S NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 033.
17. MR BHUJANGASAYANA
EMP.NO.15100, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
18. MR.SAVARIMUTHU.D
EMP.NO.14583, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
19. MR.BALAKRISHNA.K
EMP.NO.67180 MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
-4-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
20. MR.KRISHNA MURTHY P.V.
EMP.NO.39465, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
21. MR.BENNY SANTIAGO.A
EMP.NO.43306, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
DIED ON 23.12.2014
21(a) SMT J MALA,
W/O LATE BENNY SANTIAGO,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT NO.46/9, MUNIGODA ROAD,
3RD CROSS, R.S.PALYA,
KAMMANAHALLI, M.S.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 033.
22. MR.SRINIVASAN.S
EMP.NO.22836, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
(DIED ON 14.01.2021)
22(a) SMT S SUSHEELA,
W/O SRINIVASAN,
NO.24, 19TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN,
LALJI NAGAR, ADUGODI, BBMP,
BENGALURU - 560 030.
23. MR.THYAGARAJAN.S
EMP.NO.19582, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
24. MR.RAMASWAMAPPA.S.N.
EMP.NO.51150 MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
25. MR.MARIYAPPA.B
EMP.NO.26155, MAJOR,
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
26. SMT.DHANALAKSHMI
W/O MR.RAMASWAMI,
EMP.NO.20466, MAJOR,
-5-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
EX.EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
27. MR CHATRAPATHY S D
EMP NO 23560 MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
28. MR BUDDANNA
EMP NO 38576MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
29. MR RATHNAGANAPATHY V
EMP NO 47416, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
30. MR GOVINDASWAMY D
EMP NO 31415, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
31. MR HANUMANTHA SASTRY M S,
EMP NO 48375, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
32. MR BALAKRISHNA H R,
EMP NO 28463, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
33. MR VEERESH B,
EMP NO 44596, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
34. RAMABHATA R V,
EMP NO 43630, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
35. MR KARTHIKEYAN M
EMP NO 37622, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
36. MR JAYASEELAN G,
EMP NO 63604, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
-6-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
37. MR ASIF UL HUQ,
EMP NO 60304, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
38. MR GOVINDASWAMY M,
EMP NO 43285, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
DIED ON 09.04.2021.
38(a) SMT LALITHA G,
W/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY M,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.18, BOWEE LANE 'C' STREET,
NEAR SHOOLAY CIRCLE, ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
39. MR RAMALINGAPPA B,
EMP NO.56156, MAJOR
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
40. MR SHAMA RAO K,
EMP NO.32230, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
41. MR PATTAR M L I,
EMP NO.52950, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
42. MR NANJALINGAPPA,
EMP NO.65783, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
43. MR RAVINDRANATHA TAGORE,
EMP NO 60726, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER
44. MR MOHAMMED JALALUDDIN,
EMP NO 72066, MAJOR,
EX EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
45. MR. PUTTSOMACHARY
EMP. NO.68234, MAJOR
EX. EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
-7-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
(DIED ON 24.09.2020)
45(a) BY L.R. SMT. VIJAYAMBA,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO.9,
9TH B CROSS, B STREET,
KAMAKYA LAYOUT,
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
46. MR. RAMESH K N,
EMP. NO.64733, MAJOR,
EX. EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER.
47. MR. NARYANAPPA M,
EMP. NO.63525, MAJOR,
EX. EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
DIED ON 26.11.2017,
47(a) SMT SARASAMMA,
W/O LATE M NARYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2-E, BSA ROAD CROSS,
BENGALURU - 560065.
48. MR. ANKAIAH H M,
EMP. NO.45022, MAJOR,
EX. EMPLOYEE OF PETITONER,
REPRESENTED BY 64,MICO RETIRED EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION, B "4" 98, BDA FLATS,KALLAHALLY,
BANGALORE-560042,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
49. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
SPECIALIED PERSONNEL BANK BRANCH,
ST. MARK S ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 001,
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER.
50. CANARA BANK,
NO.35-2-3, OPP. MICO REAR GATE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, ADUGODI,
BANGALORE - 560 029,
REPRESNETED BY CHIEF MANAGER.
-8-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
51. DEPUTY LABOUR COUMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DIVSIION II,
(AUTHORITY UNDER S.33C(1) OF
THE I.D. ACT, 1947),
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, KARMIKA,
BHAVANA,BANGALORE 560 030.
52. SRI M JAVED AHMED,
C.R NO.66/2013-14,
EX-EMPLOYEE OF PETITIONER,
REPRESENTED BY MICO RETIRED
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DOOR NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
DEVANATHACHAR STREET, CHAMRAJAPET,
BANGALORE - 560 018,
(DIED ON 03.11.2015)
REP. BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
52(a) SMT.SYEDA MUBEENA AKTHAR,
W/O M JAVEED AHMED (LATE),
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
(E.NO.47776), PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.22/1, GROUND FLOOR, 10TH A CROSS,
KANAKANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.
(CAUSE TITLE HAS BEEN AMENDED AS
PER ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT
DATED 27.02.2023)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI SHRAVAN S LOKRE A/W SRI INDRADHANUSH CHAVAN,
ADVOCATE FOR R1 to R5, R7, R8(A), R9, R14, R15(A), R16(A),
R17 TO R19, R21(A), R24, R-27, R28, R32, R33, R36, R37,
R38(A), R39 TO R42, R46 AND R47(A),
SRI N DHANASEGARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R10 TO R13, R20,
R23, R25, R26, R29, TO R31, R34, R35, R43, R44, R48, R45(A)
AND R52(A),
SRI K S BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R49,
SRI JAI M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R50,
SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R51,
R22(A) SERVED)
-9-
WP No. 6976 of 2019
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS OF THE DLC IN CR 17-68/2012-13 AND CR 3-
13/2014-15 PASSED BY DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER,
B'LORE DIVISION;QUASH THE ORDER DTD 3.12.2018 AT
ANNEXURE-Z, PASSED BY R-51 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17TH MARCH 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-Company has assailed the order dated
03.12.2018 passed by Deputy Labour Commissioner of
Bangalore, Region No.II.
2. In terms of the said Order, the Authority under the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act of 1947') has condoned the
delay in filing the application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of
1947.
3. Respondents No.1 to 48 the former employees of
the petitioner made a claim under Section 33C(1) of the Act of
1947 for payment of pension, in terms of the settlement
between the petitioner and the workers' Union of the petitioner.
4. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that
the application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, is time
- 10 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
barred. The authority after recording the evidence of the
parties on the issue relating to the limitation, has condoned the
delay. Said order is under challenge.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not
dispute that, the contesting respondents were former
employees of petitioner - Company. It is urged that, a claim
under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, has to be within one
year from the date when the money is due. In case, the
application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 is filed
beyond one year from the due date, then there has to be an
application for condoning the delay and application must
disclose sufficient cause for not making the claim within a year
from the due date.
6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, no application
is filed to condone the delay and that being the position, would
urge that the order has to be set aside in limine.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
urge that, there is a sound logic in fixing time limit of 1 year to
file an application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, as
the employer is not expected to retain the records of the
workmen beyond a certain period. And if a belated claim is
- 11 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
made after an unreasonably long period, the employer will not
be in a position to furnish the records relating to the defence
raised.
8. Learned Senior Counsel would also invite attention
of the Court to the Order dated 31.10.2014 passed in
W.P.No.49396/2014 and W.P.No.50535-50596/2014. Said Writ
Petitions are filed to quash the proceedings before the Deputy
Labour Commissioner.
9. In terms of the said order dated 31.10.2014, Writ
Petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The relevant
paragraphs of the order in the aforementioned Writ Petitions
emphasised by the learned Senior counsel are as under:
"3. If regard is had to the said provision of law, it is
needless to state that the 67threspondent was required to
examine whether the applications filed by respondents 1
to 66 were in accordance with law and within the time
prescribed by the statute and if not whether applications
were filed for condonation of delay and if not pass orders
in accordance with law.
4. This is more so because petitioner arraigned as party
respondent in the applications having entered
appearance, filed statement of objections, and at
paragraph-6, advanced a plea that the applications were
time barred and suffered from delay and laches.
- 12 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
5. This plea should have been considered by the
67threspondent before proceeding further in the matter
since it touches upon the root of the proceedings, either
permitting or not permitting the entertainment of the
applications.
6. Although the relief in the petitions is to quash the
proceeding, it is appropriate to direct the 67th respondent
to consider the applications in the light of section 33C[1]
of the 'Act' and the proviso thereto and pass orders in
accordance with law".
10. Learned Senior Counsel would also invite attention
of the Court to paragraph No.5 of the Writ Petition to bring to
the notice of the Court the date of retirement of contesting
respondents and the number of years of delay in making claim.
Referring to the said table, it is urged that the oldest claim is
26 years old and latest claim is 6 years old. It is urged that,
such a belated claim is wholly untenable under Section 33C(1)
of the Act of 1947, moreso in a situation where there is no
application for condonation of delay.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the contesting
respondents would urge that the order dated 31.10.2014 is
passed without notice to the contesting respondents and said
order cannot be cited against the contesting respondents.
- 13 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
12. It is further urged that Section 33C(1) of the Act of
1947 does not contemplate separate application similar to one
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'Act,
1963'). If sufficient reasons are assigned for delay in
application under Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947, that would
meet the requirement.
13. In addition, it is also urged that, the contesting
respondents' claims are in respect of the pension payable and
the cause of action for such claim would be recurring and this
claim based on undisputed settlement between employer and
Union, and the petitioner cannot urge that such claim is belated
or time-barred.
14. It is urged that, only defence available to the
petitioner - Company is discharge of the liability, and that has
to be considered based on evidence placed before the authority
under the Act of 1947.
15. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
16. The following questions arise for consideration:
- 14 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
(a) Whether separate application for condonation of
delay is necessary to prosecute the claim on
Section 33C(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in
case, the claim for recovery of money is made
beyond one year from the due date?
(b) Whether the applicants before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner have made out a case for condoning
the delay in making a claim under Section 33C(1)
of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?
17. Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act of
1947 reads as under:
"Recovery of money due from an employer-
(1)"Where any money is due to a workman from an
employer under a settlement or an award or under the
provisions of [Chapter V-A or Chapter V-B] the workman
himself or any other person authorised by him in writing
in this behalf, or, in the case of the death of the
workman, his assignee or heirs may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovery, make an application to the
appropriate Government for the recovery of the money
due to him, and if the appropriate Government is satisfied
that any money is so due, it shall issue a certificate for
that amount to the Collector who shall proceed to recover
the same in the same manner as an arrear of land
revenue:
Provided that every such application shall be made
within one year from the date on which the money
became due to the workman from the employer:
- 15 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
Provided further that any such application may be
entertained after the expiry of the said period of one year,
if the appropriate Government is satisfied that the
applicant had sufficient cause for not making the
application within the said period".
18. A plain reading of the above provision makes it
clear that the authority under the Act of 1947 is empowered to
entertain an application under Section 33C(1) of the Act, 1947,
filed beyond one year from the date on which the money
became due, provided sufficient cause is shown.
19. In the present case, the contesting respondents
have assigned reasons for the delay in their application/petition
under Section 33C(1) of the Act, 1947 and have also led
evidence in support of their claims.
20. In these circumstances, merely because a separate
application for condonation of delay-which is not mandated
under the Act of 1947 is not filed, cannot be a ground to reject
the claims on the ground of delay. Such an objection pertains
to form rather than substance. It is well settled that, in case of
conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail,
unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form
- 16 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
as well. However, it is equally necessary that a claimant
seeking to invoke the proviso to Section 33C(1) of the Act,
1947 must assign valid and sufficient reasons for the delay.
21. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner seriously urged that, in view of the order passed in
W.P.No.49396/2014 and W.P.Nos. 50535-50596/2014, the
respondents were required to file application for condonation of
delay in which event the petitioner-Company would have filed
objection to the said application, the Court is of the view that
Section 33C(1) of the Act of 1947 does not specifically mandate
a separate application under Section 5 of Act of 1963. It is also
relevant to note that, in the earlier Writ Petitions referred to
above, the present respondents were not parties, and the order
therein was passed without hearing them. Moreover, the said
order also does not mandate a separate application to condone
the delay.
22. Contesting respondents are former employees of
the petitioner. There is no dispute that on 08.10.1983,
settlement was entered into between the petitioner and the
Union wherein the petitioner launched a saving-cum-pension
scheme. In terms of the said scheme, both the petitioner and
- 17 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
employees were required to make certain contribution to the
pension fund. The employees' contribution was through the
deduction of a certain amount, from the employee's salary by
the employer.
23. The settlement provided for minimum 10 years'
tenure. It is not in dispute that later, there was one more
settlement on 14.08.1989 which has taken note of earlier
pension scheme and provided continuity.
24. It is admitted that, the scheme was later modified
and linked to the scheme of Life Insurance Corporation of India.
25. The contesting respondents claim that the pension
as payable under the scheme is not yet settled.
26. It is relevant to notice that, before the authority
under the Act of 1947, the parties have led evidence. The
parties have also produced records. The authority has referred
to Exhibits P1 to P(a)81-the letters and the applications by the
workmen. Those documents are from 1995-2011. There is no
dispute that these applications/letters relate to the pension
amount which the respondents claim.
- 18 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
27. The authority has taken into account the
aforementioned letters while condoning the delay and has come
to the conclusion that the ground is made out to condone the
delay in filing the application.
28. This being the position, the Court is of the view that
the respondents were pursuing their claim before the
petitioner. The authority has also taken a view that, the claim
for pension, pursuant to a settlement which is not in dispute, if
denied on the technical plea and limitation, would result in
injustice to the workmen and accordingly, condones the delay.
29. The scheme provides for contribution by both the
employer and employee for the pension fund, and the
contribution by the employee is also at the hands of the
employer by way of deduction of certain amount from the
salary/wages payable. The contribution is required to be made
to a bank account in State Bank of India, and payment of
pension is also to the account of the pensioners, and in such
situation, if there is a dispute as to the payment, the Court is of
the view that, the matter requires consideration on merits by
condoning the delay if valid reasons are assigned. The Court is
- 19 -
WP No. 6976 of 2019
of the view valid reasons are assigned and evidence is also led
in this behalf.
30. Upon consideration of the materials on record and
the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the decision
of the authority to condone the delay cannot be termed
perverse so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
31. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) The authority under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 shall proceed to consider the claim on its
merits.
(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case, except
on the issue of delay.
(iv) All other contentions are kept open.
(v) Registry to send the records back to the
jurisdictional Deputy Labour Commissioner,
forthwith.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
