[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Deepak Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                    NC: 2026:KHC:18375
                                                 WP No. 34614 of 2025


             HC-KAR




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

                                      BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 34614 OF 2025 (L-RES)

             BETWEEN:


             DEEPAK BHAT
             S/O. SHRIPAD BHAT,
             AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
             OCC: NOT EMPLOYED
             R/O NO. 375, EWS BDA LAYOUT,
             1ST CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR,
             8TH PHASE,
             BANGALORE 560 076
                                                          ...PETITIONER

             (BY SRI. VILAS RANGANATH DATAR., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by    AND:
KIRAN
KUMAR R
Location:    1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT         DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
OF
KARNATAKA          M.S. BUILDING,
                   DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                   BANGALORE 560 001.
                   REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

             2.    M/S. SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (IND) PVT
                   LTD.,
                   PLOT NO. 64-66-88/97,
                   NARASAPURAHOBLI,
                   KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                   ACCHATANAHALLI VILLAGE
                   TALUK-KOLAR
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:18375
                                      WP No. 34614 of 2025


HC-KAR



    REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
    REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. RAJKUMAR, AGA FOR R1
    SMT. SHWETHA RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA      PRAYING TO:
         (A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR WRIT
               ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
               CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
               WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER
               ARTICLE 226 AND/OR 227 OF THE
               CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY CALLING FOR
               RECORDS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
               AND QUASHING THE ORDER ON IA NO. III
               DATED 18.10.2025 IN ID NO. 17/2024
               PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AND
               PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR VIDE
               ANNEXURE-M IN THE INTEREST OF
               JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

         (B)   THAT CONSEQUENTLY THIS HON'BLE
               COURT PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
               CERTIORARI     OR  WRIT    ORDER    OR
               DIRECTION     IN   THE    NATURE    OF
               CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
               WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION UNDER
               ARTICLE 226 AND/OR 227 OF THE
               CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY CALLING FOR
               RECORDS FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT
               AND QUASHING THE ORDER OF FRAMING
               THE     ADDITIONAL     ISSUE    DATED
               18.10.2025 IN ID NO. 17/2024 PASSED BY
               THE LABOUR COURT AND PRINCIPAL
               DISTRICT JUDGE, KOLAR VIDE ANNEXURE-
               N IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
               EQUITY.
                                  -3-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:18375
                                          WP No. 34614 of 2025


HC-KAR



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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

                        ORAL ORDER

1. This case is listed for orders on interlocutory

application at I.A. No.1 of 2026. With the consent of

both the counsel, the case is heard on merits, as the

question raised before this Court lies in a narrow

compass.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated

18.10.2025 passed in Industrial Dispute No.17 of

2024 by the Labour Court, Kolar. In terms of the

said order, the Labour Court has allowed I.A. No.3

filed by the second party before the Labour Court to

frame an additional issue on limitation.

3. The Labour Court has held that it is a mixed question

of law and fact and no prejudice will be caused to

any of the parties by framing the issue. Hence, I.A.

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

No.3 was allowed and an additional issue was

framed. The additional issue framed reads as under:

"Whether reference is barred by limitation?"

4. Assailing the said order, the employee is before this

Court.

5. Whether the petitioner is a workman or not is one of

the questions to be decided by the Labour Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner was terminated on

08.11.2017 and the petitioner raised a dispute by

filing an application before the Conciliation Officer on

05.12.2018 through an e-mail. Thus the petitioner

claims that the claim is in time and there is no scope

to raise an issue on limitation.

7. It is also submitted that no specific period of

limitation is prescribed to raise a dispute of this

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

nature, as such, the Labour Court could not have

framed an issue relating to Limitation.

8. In addition, elaborating the submissions, the learned

counsel for the petitioner would also submit that

when the communication was sent to the Conciliation

Officer in the month of December 2018, the Officer

did not take up the application for further

proceedings as required under the law and later, he

rejected the claim on the premise that there is no

industrial dispute.

9. The said order was called in question by filing a writ

petition in W.P. No.28534 of 2023 [L-RES] and the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ

petition and set aside the order passed by the

Conciliation Officer and remitted the matter to the

Conciliation Officer to pass an appropriate order in

accordance with law.

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

10. It is further submitted that the employer filed a writ

appeal in W.A. No.904 of 2024 [L-RES] and the same

was dismissed on 13.11.2024 confirming the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

11. Referring to these circumstances, the learned counsel

for the petitioner would submit that the issue relating

to limitation does not arise, for the reason that the

employer has not raised the question of limitation

when the employer was served with the notice in the

aforementioned writ petition as well as when

employer filed Writ Appeal No.904 of 2024.

12. It is also submitted that the employer was very much

aware of the fact that the petitioner raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer in 2018 and same can

be noticed from the statement of objections filed by

the employer who has chosen not to rebut the

statement made in the claim petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

13. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner

would also urge that the Labour Court cannot go

beyond the point for reference framed and there is

no point for reference framed relating to the

limitation.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge

that the Conciliation Officer has not reported that the

claim is time barred. He has only reported that the

conciliation has failed and as such the Labour Court

could not have framed an issue relating to limitation.

15. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for

the petitioner would place reliance on the following

three judgments:

(i) The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co.

Ltd. v. The Workmen and others1.

(ii) Mahendra L. Jain and others v. Indore Development Authority and others2.

AIR 1967 SC 469

(2005) 1 SCC 639

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

(iii) U.S. Technology International Private Limited v. Ms.Manju S. Pillai3.

16. Referring to the aforementioned judgments, it is

urged that the Labour Court cannot adjudicate a

question which is not referred to by the appropriate

Government and the points for reference made by

the appropriate Government would not cover the

issue relating to the limitation.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -

employer would submit that the dispute is raised in

2022 and no document is placed before the Labour

Court to show that the employee approached the

Conciliation Officer in the year 2018 as contented

and it is also urged that a specific plea is taken in the

statement of objections stating that the claim is time

barred and that being the position, the Labour Court

(Writ Petition No.15689 of 2019 disposed of on 01.08.2024)

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

was justified in framing an issue relating to

limitation.

18. In addition, it is also urged that the question of

limitation is incidental to the point for reference

framed and even in the absence of any specific plea,

the Court is required to frame an issue relating to

limitation, as the Court is not required to consider

the stale or time-barred claims.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the

petitioners claim that the application was submitted

before the Conciliation Officer in the year 2018. It is

urged that the dispute is raised for the first time in

the year 2022.

20. The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and perused the material on record.

21. The Conciliation Officer has once rejected the

application filed by the petitioner on the premise that

an industrial dispute does not exist. The said order

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

was called in question by the employee before this

Court in W.P. No. 28534 of 2023. The said petition

was allowed and the Court has held that the

Conciliation Officer has no jurisdiction to take a view

that the industrial dispute does not exist.

22. It is also noticed that the said order in W.P. No.

28534 of 2023 was called in question before the

Division Bench of this Court by filing Writ Appeal

No.904 of 2024. In the aforementioned proceedings,

the Court was required to consider the question as to

whether the Conciliation Officer is justified in holding

that the industrial dispute does exist or not. In the

aforementioned context, the Court has said that the

Conciliation Officer was not justified in taking a view

that an industrial dispute does not exist.

23. The question of limitation did not arise in those

proceedings and the employer was also not obligated

under law to raise a defence relating to limitation at

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

that point of time, as the employer was only

contesting the petition and opposing the employee

on the premise that the industrial dispute does not

exist and the Conciliation Officer is justified in

rejecting the petitioner's application. Thus, the

submission that the contention relating to limitation

ought to have been raised in the writ petition or in

the writ appeal referred to above, cannot be

accepted.

24. The next question is "whether the Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court can frame a question relating

to the limitation, when the point for reference does

not touch upon the question of limitation?".

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referred to above,

wherein it is held that the power of the Labour Court

is limited to say that it cannot frame a question

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

which is unconcerned and unconnected with the point

for reference.

26. The question relating to limitation cannot be said to

be a question which is unconcerned or unconnected

to the point for reference that is framed. The point

for reference that is framed in this case is relating to

the validity of termination of the employee. In case,

the dispute raised is stale or belated, the employer is

enabled under law to raise such contentions.

27. When the point for reference was framed, the

employer or the employee were not heard. It is only

an administrative order. At that stage, the employer

has no right of audience and no opportunity to raise

the plea of limitation or delay and laches. That being

the position, the employer is permitted under law to

raise a defence relating to delay and laches. In that

event, the Labour Court is also competent to frame

an issue relating to delay and laches.

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

28. In the instant case, the Labour Court has framed an

issue relating to limitation. It is a settled position of

law that the dispute of this nature is not governed by

any Article in the Limitation Act, 1963, as such, there

cannot be any question relating to limitation. The

issue ought to have been relating to the delay and

laches, if any, on the part of the employee.

29. That being the position, this Court is of the view that

the petition has to be allowed in part. The issue

relating to the limitation has to be reframed and

accordingly reframed as under:

"Whether the claim made by the petitioner is

hit by delay and laches?"

30. There appears to be a dispute as to when the dispute

is raised. Petitioner claims it was raised before the

Conciliation Officer in the year 2018 and respondents

contend that the dispute is raised for the first time in

the year 2022. The Labour Court shall consider this

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

aspect while deciding issue relating to delay and

laches.

31. It is made clear that in case the petitioner has raised

the dispute in the year 2018 itself, then the Court is

of the view that the Labour Court is obliged to

consider the case on merits, and cannot reject the

claim on the premise that it is hit by delay and

laches.

32. If the dispute is raised in the year 2022 for the first

time, then the Labour Court has to consider, whether

there are justifiable reasons for the delay and if

sufficient reasons are made out explaining the delay,

then the Labour Court has to consider such claim on

merits.

33. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(I) The writ petition is allowed in part;

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18375

HC-KAR

(II) The impugned order on I.A. No.III and framing of additional issue, both dated 18.10.2025 passed in Industrial Dispute No.17 of 2024 by the Labour Court, Kolar vide Annexures 'M' and 'N' are modified.

(III) The Labour Court shall frame the following additional issue: