[Cites 42, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bdk Valves Private Limited vs Ashok Hanumantappa Shiggavi Urf Barki on 19 January, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

R Reserved on : 05.01.2026 Pronounced on : 19.01.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.104683 OF 2025 (L-ID) C/W

WRIT PETITION No.104644 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104649 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104652 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104655 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104657 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104686 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104687 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104748 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104752 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104753 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104756 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104771 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104775 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104824 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104881 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104883 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104884 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104885 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104886 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104887 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104888 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104889 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104890 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104897 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105056 OF 2025 (L-ID) 2

WRIT PETITION No.105057 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105058 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105062 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105065 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105067 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105076 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105077 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105078 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105081 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105084 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105085 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105086 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105087 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105090 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105108 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105109 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105110 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105112 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105113 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105115 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105118 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105119 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105154 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105155 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105168 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105169 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105171 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105172 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105370 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105371 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105372 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105373 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105377 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105379 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105507 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105508 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105509 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105510 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105511 OF 2025 (L-ID) 3

WRIT PETITION No.105512 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105513 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105514 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105516 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105517 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105519 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105520 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105521 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105539 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105541 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105542 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105544 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105545 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105546 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105693 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105749 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105751 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105752 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105753 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105754 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105755 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105756 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105757 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105758 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105759 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105760 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105761 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105762 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105763 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105765 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION No.105766 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105794 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105845 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.105848 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106416 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106418 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106425 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106427 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106429 OF 2025 (L-ID) 4

WRIT PETITION No.106603 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106632 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106683 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106684 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106685 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106686 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106689 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106692 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106810 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106866 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION No.106867 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION No.106868 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION No.106870 OF 2025 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION No.106871 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106872 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106910 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106924 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107080 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107081 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107082 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107085 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107086 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107097 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.104758 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106426 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.106828 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107113 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107436 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107437 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107442 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107443 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107451 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107627 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107629 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107638 OF 2025 (L-ID) WRIT PETITION No.107640 OF 2025 (L-ID) 5

IN WRIT PETITION No.104683 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

RAJESH KALLAPPA TOTAGANTI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O SHALAVADI TALUK: NAVALGUND DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 582 208. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 45/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III. A TRUE COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS 6

ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.104644 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

DAVALSAB KHASIMBAR SHAIKH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NEAR KALAYAN MANTAP NANDAGOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 40/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104649 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

NINGAPPA BASAPPA WALIKAR OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 43/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. HEREIN PRODUCED AS VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104652 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

IMAMSAB MUTTUKHANAVAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BHANDIWAD TALUK: HUBBALLI - 580 023 DISTRICT: DHARWAD. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 9

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.48/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. WRIT PETITION No.104655 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

GIRISH KULKARNI OCC: NIL, R/O SHRINAGAR UNAKAL HUBBALLI - 580 031. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 49/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. A TRUE COPY HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104657 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

MALLIKARJUN C.KUNTOJI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL R/O LOHIYANAGAR, GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, HUBBALI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 44/2024, 11

DISMISSING I.A.NO. III A TRUE COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104686 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MOUNESH SHANTAPPA BADIGER OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 56/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104687 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

HANUMANTAPPA HONNAPPA GURAGUNTE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O CHANNAPET OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 13

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 58/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A. WRIT PETITION No.104748 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MARUTI MUDAKAPPA BOODANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O 3RD CROSS NANDAGOKUL, HUBBALL. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 14

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 46/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A. WRIT PETITION No.104752 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

PRASHANT MURALIDHAR MITHARE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC:NIL, R/O ADHYAPAKA NAGAR AMARAGOL, TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 53/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104753 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

RAVI FAKIRAPPA KARAKALI OCC: NIL, R/O NEAR NAVADAYA SCHOOL NANDAGOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 021. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 52/2024, 16

DISMISSING I.A.NO. III. A TRUE COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104756 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

GOVIND BHIMAPPA BADAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC:NIL, R/O NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.47/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104771 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

BASAVARAJ TIPPANNA KITTUR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BETADUR TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 581 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 61/2024, 18

DISMISSING IA NO. III. TRUE COPY IS HEREIN IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104775 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND: RAVI BHIMSEN DEVAGIRI OCC: NIL, R/O AKSHAY COLONY UDYAM NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.51/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A..

WRIT PETITION No.104824 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

KALLAPPA RUDRAPPA MASHETTI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 20

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.11/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104881 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

ISHWARAPPA BASAPPA MARADANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC. NIL, R/O DASANUR TALUK: KALAGHATAGI DHARWAD - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 21

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.109/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104883 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

VENKATESH NARAYAN BUKKAPATTANAM AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VIJAYANAGAR NEAR RAJ NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 032. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR 22

DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.10/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104884 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

CHANDRAPPA SOMANNA KOTI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOKUL GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 23

OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 08/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. WRIT PETITION No.104885 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MAHADEVAPPA T.KUNKUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARLINGESH NAGAR GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 028. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.67/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104886 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MALLAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA CHADICHAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GANGIWAL RAYANAL, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 25

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 14/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104887 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

NAGARAJ M. S., S/O. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAJANAHALLI DAVANAGERE - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.13/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

WRIT PETITION No.104888 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

PARASHURAM BADEPPA MADAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ANAND NAGAR OLD-HUBLI, HUBBALLI HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 27

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.60/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.104889 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

MAHADEVAPPA DYAMANNA HARIJAN OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARLING NAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 28

IN WRIT PETITION No.104890 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

NIJALINGAPPA G.ANGADI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O AT POST NOOLVI HUBBALLI - 580 028. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 29

IN WRIT PETITION No.104897 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MARUTI UDACHAPPA HALAGI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOKUL HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 30

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 50/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105056 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

NAGARAJ BHARAMAPPA CHAVATI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NEKARNAGAR 31

GIRIYAL ROAD, HUBBALI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.70/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105057 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) 32

AND:

SANTOSH S.BADIGER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O EWS 76 GANDHINAGAR, GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.61/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105058 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 33

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

PARAMESHWAR BASAVANNEPPA BYAHATTI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O G.BASAVANAKOPPA KALAGHATAGI, DHARWAD - 580 124. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.19/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105062 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 34

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SHIVALINGAPPA HANUMANT KESHAPPANAVAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O PARASAPUR HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 09/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105065 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 35

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

HANUMANTAPPA SHANTAPPA BYAHATTI OCC: NIL, R/O SANDI ONI, GOKUL HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 57/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105067 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 36

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MANOHAR LAXMAN HEBASUR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VIJAYANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 15/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105076 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 37

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MALLIKARJUN DODDAPPA MISHRIKOTI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ARJUNVIHAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 89/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105077 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, 38

ADVOCATES) AND:

VASANT YALLAPPA SHINDE AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O REVADIHAL TALUK: HUBBALLI, DHARWAD - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 56/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105078 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ADVOCATES) AND:

VENKATESH OBLESH GUTTI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VIJAYANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 032. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 21/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105081 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ADVOCATES) AND:

SUNDAR SAMASON PATTI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAMLINGESH NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.35/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105084 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ADVOCATES) AND:

SHIVAYOGI P.CHOUSHETTY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RENUKANAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.64/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105085 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ADVOCATES)

AND:

ALISAB MABUSAB AGASAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BELAGALI TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.38/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105086 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 43

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MANJUNATH DEVENDRAPPA KONI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOUKULA ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 021. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.29/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105087 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 44

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SIDDHAROODHA S/O MAHADEVAPPA BASARIKOPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KURUVINAKOPPA TALUK: KALAGHATAGI DHARWAD - 581 204. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.99/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105090 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 45

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

VINOD DEVENDRAPPA DANGE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAMALINGESHNAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.105/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105108 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 46

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

ASHOK HANUMANTAPPA SHIGGAVI URF BARKI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MISHRIKOTI TALUK: KALAGHATAGI HUBBALLI - 581 204. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 107/2024 DISMISSING I.A NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105109 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD 47

HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

VINODKUMAR VIRUPAXAPPA VEERAPUR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BELADHADI DHARWAD - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 108/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105110 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 48

NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

BASAVARAJ SABANNA KOLUR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NEKAR NAGAR GIRIYAL, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.1/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105112 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

ZAHEER ABBAS MADAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: NIL R/O OLD HUBLI HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 101/2024 DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105113 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 50

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MANAPPA FAKIRAPPA PARASANNAVAR OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.105115 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 51

INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

KALLANAGOUDA SANGANAGOUDA SHIVANAGOUDRA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UNAKAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 104/2024 DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105118 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER 52

THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

RAVISHANKAR GURUSIDDAPPA MELINAMANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MELIN ONI GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.105119 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SHAMBULING MALLAPPA BYAHATTI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O DEVALINGIKOPPA POST G.BASAVANAKOPPA TALUK KALAGHATAGI, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.105154 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

SHRIKANT KALLAPPA SULLAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.37/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105155 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

MANTESH SIDDAPPA HOSAVAKKAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O HIREHONNALLI TALUK: KALAGHATAGI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 114. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 56

OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.32/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105168 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

PRAKASH RAMANNA MALALI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BAIRIDEVARKOPPA TALUK: HUBBALLI - 580 025. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 57

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.33/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105169 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

CHANDRASHEKHAR NAGAPPA UNAKAL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL, GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 58

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.23/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105171 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

NAGARAJ BASAPPA SULLAD AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O VIKASNAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 021. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 59

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.82/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105172 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

ASHOK DODDABASAPPA NANDI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARALINGESHNAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 60

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.59/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105370 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

JAGADEESH H.ANDEMMANAVAR AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 61

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.43/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105371 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MARUTI D.TATTI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O POST RAYANAL TALUK: HUBBALLI, DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 62

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.69/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105372 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

REVANASIDDAPPA NINGAPPA METI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL TALUK: HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 63

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.69/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105373 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

KARIYAPPA FAKIRAPPA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARLINGNAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 64

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRAITE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 98/2024, DISMISSING IA. NO. III. ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105377 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SALIMA W/O ABDUL KHADAR JUNEDI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAMLINGESHNAGAR HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 65

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 39/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III. ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105379 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MAILARLING IRAPPA MUDENNAVAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 66

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 92/2024, DISMISSING IA. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105507 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

BHIMAPPA GUDADAPPA MYAGERI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 67

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18th JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.78/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105508 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

KAREPPA MAREPPA WALIKAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NAYAKANAHULIKATTI TALUK: HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 577 536. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 68

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18th JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.77/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105509 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BASAPPA M.GUDIHAL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 69

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18th JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.74/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105510 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

BHIMAPPA HANUMANTAPPA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 70

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18th JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.99/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105511 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

TIMMAPPA MADEV NAIK AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GANDHI NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT 71

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18th JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.40/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105512 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

KASHAPPA SURESHAPPA ANGADI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O LOHIYA NAGAR HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 72

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.47/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105513 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SHIVAPUTRAPPA SANGAPPA PARAVAPUR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARLINGANAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 73

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.72/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105514 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

CHANDRAYYA BASAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UNKAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 74

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.60/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105516 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

BASAVARAJ SOMALINGAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYNAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 75

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.75/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105517 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SHRIDHAR GANGAPPA KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VEERANJANEYA VIHAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT 76

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.68/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105519 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SIDDAPPA DYAMAPPA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL 77

HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.97/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105520 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

RAVI GANGAPPA KUMBAR 78

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VEERANJANVIHAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.66/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105521 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) 79

AND:

SHIVALINGAPPA BASAPPA MARADANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O G.BASAVAKOPPA TALUK: KALAGHATAGI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 114. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.67/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105539 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 80

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SHAKEELAHMAD ABDULAHMAD KANKUDTHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KANKUDTHI CHAL, GAVI ONI, HUBBALLI - 580 028. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.81/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105541 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 81

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

VIJAYA S.KERAKALAMATTI S/O SHIVAPPA KERAKALMATTI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BAIRIDEVARKOPPA HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.45/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105542 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 82

NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MANJUNATH SIDDESHWARGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UDYAMNAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.93/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105544 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SUBHAS HANAMANTAPPA JADAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.85/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105545 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 84

INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

VASUDEV NAMADEV KUNTHE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KARJAGI HAVERI - 581 112 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.52/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105546 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 85

INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SIJIDKHAN SULTANKHAN PATHAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R.O.GIRANI CHAL HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.48/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105693 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 86

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

CHANDRASHEKHAR VISHNU MAGAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O HANGAL CHAL MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI DHARWAD - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 55/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105749 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY 87

INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

ABBASALI ABDULREHAMAN KHARADI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O SANDI ONI GOKULA ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 26/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE A. 88

IN WRIT PETITION No.105751 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT, AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

BASAVARAJ HANUMANTAPPA PUJAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.86/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105752 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

PARASHURAM CHANDRAKANT SHIMPI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UNAKAL HUBBALLI - 580 031. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 90

OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 88/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105753 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R.AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MAHAMMED AYUB DADAPEER MADAN AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O M.V.GALLI IDLI ONI HUBBALLI - 580 028 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 91

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.30/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105754 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

NINGAPPA IRAPPA MYAGERI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MYAGERI ONI GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 92

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.76/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105755 OF 2025 :

BETWEEN:

CHANDRASHEKHAR SOMAPPA HASABI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O SHIRAGUPPI, TALUK: HUBBALLI DHARWAD - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 93

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 57/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105756 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

TULASIDAS K.SAVANT AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ARABAIL TALUK: YALLAPUR UTTAR KANNADA - 581 337. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 94

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.71/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III .

IN WRIT PETITION No.105757 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

YALLAPPA KAREPPA HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 95

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.87/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105758 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

PARAMESHAPPA D.KUMARI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ISHWAR NAGAR OPP. APMC, HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 96

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.46/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105759 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

MAHANTESH RAMAPPA DONI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O JADAR ONI GOKUL, HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT 97

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 83/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105760 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

VINAYAK TIPPANNA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O LOHIYA NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 98

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 96/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105761 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR)

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SEEDARLA PURUSHOTTAM JOHN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MANTUR ROAD MOULALI BLOCK, HUBBALLI 99

DHARWAD - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.58/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105762 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

LAVAPPA B.UNKAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 100

OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT/S

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 42/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105763 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) 101

AND:

RAMESH A.HARIJAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O AT POST RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 65/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105765 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

MAHADEV DURGAPPA BANDIWADDAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ANAND NAGAR HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD- 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 49/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105766 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

BHIMAPPA HANAMANTAPPA UNKAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KELAGIN ONI, GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 71/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105794 OF 2025 :

BETWEEN:

AND:

SHRIPAD NARASINHRAO NADAKARNI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O LOHIYA NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 07/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105845 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 105

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

HANUMANTH NINGAPPA SULLAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O RAYANAL, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.12/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.105848 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 106

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

RUDRAGOUDA T.PATIL AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O AT POST RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 028. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.68/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106416 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 107

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

KALLAPPA SHIVAPUTRAPPA ROTTI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NAYAKANHULIKATTI TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 007. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.5/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106418 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 108

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

RAMESH MAHADEVAPPA MADANBHAVI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O ISHWAR NAGAR OLD HUBBALLI HUBBALLI - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.4/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106425 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 109

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MALLIKARJUN KALLAPPA KAMMAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.28/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106427 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 110

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

UDAYKUMAR DEVENDRAPPA GANIGER AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UDYAMNAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.31/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106429 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD 111

HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

DYAMAPPA MUDAKAPPA SAVANUR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARLINGESHNAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO . ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.102/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106603 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 112

NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SHIVAJI VENU BHOJAGAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O VALLABHAI NAGAR MANTOOR ROAD, HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106632 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 113

CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

VINAYAK NAGAPPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MATAPATI GALLI PATIL CHAL, HUBBALLI - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 3/2023, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106683 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 114

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

AND:

GANGADHAR C.BARADUR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC; NIL, R/O MORARJI NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106684 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY 115

INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

DEVAPPA YALLAPPA SUBBAYI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UNKAL. HUBBALLI DHRWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 54/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 116

IN WRIT PETITION No.106685 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

GURUSIDDAPPA HANCHINAMANI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAMLINGESHNAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUDE 2025 IN KID NO.63/2024, DISMISSING I.A. NO.III. A TRUE COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106686 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

NAZIRAHMMAD MD.HUSSAIN BALIGAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAMLINGESH NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 118

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT, DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 34/2025, DISMISSING IA NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106689 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

VIRUPAXAPPA GANGAPPA UMACHAGI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOKUL GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 119

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106692 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BHIMAPPA MAHADEVAPPA BHANGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KUSUGAL TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 120

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 2/2025, DISMISSING I.A. NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106810 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

AND:

HANUMANTAPPA N.GULED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O LOHIYA NAGAR HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 121

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.41/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106866 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

RAVIKUMAR C.BARKER AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O AT POST SULLA HUBBALLI, DHARWAD - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 122

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.70/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106867 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

GANAPATI LAXMAN JADHAV AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GIRINI CHAL HOSUR, HUBBALLI - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 123

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106868 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

CHANNAPPA MARUTHI VAVARE AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BENGERI KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI - 580 032. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 124

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106870 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

RUKMASA PANDURANG DHONGADI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAVI NAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 125

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106871 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

CHIDANAND BASAPPA BADIGER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NANDAGOKUL 126

HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106872 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) 127

AND:

GURUSIDDAPPA MALLESHAPPA SAJJANAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O OLD HUBLI HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

IN WRIT PETITION No.106910 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

BASAVARAJ YALLAPPA KUMBAR AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O NOOLVI TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 028. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 79/2024, DISMISSING IA NO. III. VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.106924 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR). ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., 129

SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MANJUNATH IRAPPA MUDENNAVAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL HUBBALLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.94/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107080 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 130

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SHANKARAPPA MALLAPPA SANKANNAVAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KALIDASNAGAR KUNDAGOL, DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 581 113. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.73/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107081 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 131

NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

MARUTI MAILARAPPA SULLADA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARALING NAGAR GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 54/2024, DISMISSING I.A NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107082 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

GIRISH HONNAPPA KULKARNI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O EWS, 440 NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 025. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 24/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107085 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 133

CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

BASAPPA HANUMATAPPA CHADICHAL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANAL HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 64/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107086 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER 134

THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SANDESH SHANKAR MUCHANDI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MUCHANDI CHAL TABIB LAND, HUBBALLI DHARWAD - 580 020. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 51/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107097 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED 135

A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

AND:

ASHOK BASAPPA INCHAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC:NIL, R/O MANASAGIRINAGAR GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO -ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.84/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 136

IN WRIT PETITION No.104758 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

MAHADEVAPPA FAKIRAPPA YARGERI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OCC: NIL, PARASAPUR POST. RAYANAL, HUBBALLI - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.41/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III A TRUE COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. 137

IN WRIT PETITION No.106426 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH H.DANGARI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O SHETTAR LAYOUT VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO . ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRISIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.63/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 138

IN WRIT PETITION No.106828 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

AND:

IRAPPA SHADEPPA ANGADI OCC: NIL, R/O KESHWAPUR HUBBALLI - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LABOUR COURT DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 42/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III A COPY IS HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A. 139

IN WRIT PETITION No.107113 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

AMBRESH Y.HANGARAKI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GIRIYAL ROAD OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 44/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 140

IN WRIT PETITION No.107436 OF 2025: BETWEEN:

SHIVASHANKAR MALLAYYA SHIVANUR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O BASAVANAKOPPA TALUK: KALAGHATAGI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 114. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.25/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 141

IN WRIT PETITION No.107437 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

YALLAPPA SHANKARAPPA INGALALLI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O MAILARALINGESHWARA GOKUL, HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.27/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 142

IN WRIT PETITION No.107442 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

M/S. BDK VALVES PRIVATE LIMITED A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT INNOV8, REGAL BUILDING, 44 CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 001

AND:

ISHWARAPPA SIDDAPA MASHETTI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O RAYANALA TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 024. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.72/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107443 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030

(REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SANTOSH SHANKARAPPA BADAMI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O UNKAL HUBBALLI - 580 031. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT 144

OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.95/2024, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE - A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107451 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES)

AND:

VEERAYYA CHANNAVEERAYYA CHAVADI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O EKTANAGAR UNKAL TALUK: HUBBALLI DISTRICT: DHARWAD - 580 031. ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 145

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO73/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107627 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

PRAKASH HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GOKUL ROAD HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT HUBBALLI - 580 030. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 146

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.20/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107629 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

AND:

SRIKANT FAKIRSA LADAVA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O KOULPET KUMBAR ONI HUBBALLI - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 147

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.76/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107638 OF 2025:

BETWEEN:

ALSO HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.47/48, GOKUL ROAD, DHARWAD HUBLI, KARNATAKA, INDIA - 580 030 (REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR) ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE A/W., SMT. GEETANJALI KAMAT AND SMT. SAAKSHI R. AJGOANKAR, ADVOCATES) AND:

SIRAJKHAN PATHAN S/O MAJIDKHAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O JAMADAR CHAWL GANESH PET, HUBBALLI - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 148

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI DATED. 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO. 77/2025, DISMISSING I.A NO. III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

IN WRIT PETITION No.107640 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

AND:

HULAGAPPA BASAPPA KAMALDINNI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC: NIL, R/O GIRANI CHAL KARWAR ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 023. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE A/W., 149

SMT. TANUJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI DATED 18TH JUNE 2025 IN KID NO.74/2025, DISMISSING I.A.NO.III VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

A conspectus of these petitions reveals that they arise from a

common grievance. The petitioner - BDK Valves Private Limited,

has called in question the order dated 18-06-2025, whereby the

Labour Court, Hubballi, rejected its application invoking Section 10

r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section

11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short),

seeking a stay of further proceedings in the individual disputes

pending before it, until final disposal of reference in Reference

No.14 of 2024. 150

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows: -

2.1. The petitioner is a Company engaged in the

manufacturing of industrial valves and allied products operating

under the name and style of Weir BDK Valves Private Limited. It is

the averment in the petition that the petitioner employs a

significant work force adhering to all statutory regulations and

labour laws. It also claims to have a long-standing reputation for

industrial harmony committed to fair labour practice. The

respondents/workmen in all these cases are different; nonetheless,

are all working as employees of the petitioner. The workmen, in all

these cases, come to be dismissed from service for their

participation in a strike, which the petitioner terms it to be illegal.

The workmen are members of a Workers Union named VRPTK

Workers Union called for a strike on 16-10-2024 leading to

breakdown of conciliation efforts for the demands of the Union to be

met by the petitioner. On failure of conciliation of the demands

being met by the petitioner, the appropriate Government refers the

dispute for adjudication in Reference No.14 of 2024 on 15-11-2024.

The strike called by the Union led to dismissal of each of the 151

workmen on 27-11-2024. Against dismissals, the workmen raised

industrial disputes by filing individual applications under Section

10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute initiated by each

of the workmen is separately numbered.

2.2. It appears that during the pendency of the dispute talks

of conciliation had failed. The petitioner/Management then files an

application, in each of disputes filed by the individual workman,

under Section 10 r/w 151 of the CPC and Section 11 of the Act

seeking stay of proceedings until final disposal of reference in

Ref.No.14 of 2024. Ref.No.14 of 2024 is with regard to strike being

illegal or otherwise and rejection of demands of workmen not being

met by the Management. The concerned Court by its order dated

18-06-2025 in all these cases holds that Section 10 of the CPC is

not applicable to proceedings under the Act and rejects the

application with costs. It is this order that is called in question by

the petitioner/Management before this Court in these petitions.

2.3. A coordinate Bench of this Court owing to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the 152

petitioner had stayed all further proceedings before the Labour

Court until disposal of Reference No.14 of 2024. The respondents/

workmen having filed applications seeking vacation of the interim

order, the matter is heard and taken up for its final disposal with

the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Heard Sri Shridhar Prabhu along with Smt Geetanjali

Kamath and Smt. Saakshi R. Ajgoankar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner and Sri Vishwanath Hegde along with Smt. Tanuja

Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

SUBMISSIONS:

PETITIONER'S:

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that the main matter in Ref.No.14 of 2024 is

pending adjudication before the Court. If the Labour Court would

answer the reference in favour of the workmen holding that the

strike was not illegal and demands that are made by the members

of Workmen Union were valid, the termination order would 153

automatically vanish. Therefore, pending Reference No.14 of 2024,

it would not be necessary for the Labour Court to consider every

individual dispute of the workmen who have been dismissed. It is

here the learned counsel submits that the provisions of the CPC as

obtaining under Section 10 would squarely become applicable, as it

would be waste of time of the Labour Court to conduct trial in each

of the industrial dispute raised by the individual workman. He would

urge several other contentions on merits of the matter before the

Labour Court. Those contentions would be considered if necessary

in the course of the order.

RESPONDENTS:

5. Contrariwise, the learned counsel Sri Vishwanath Hedge

appearing for the respondents' workers in all these cases would

vehemently refute the submissions in defence of the order of the

Labour Court contending that Section 10 of the CPC is admittedly

inapplicable to proceedings of the Labour Court. The limited

application of the CPC is as obtaining in sub-section (3) of Section

11 of the Act r/w Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules,

1957. Barring this, Section 10 of the CPC cannot be invoked to 154

defeat the right of individual employees who have suffered

individual orders of dismissal and have instituted individual

industrial disputes under Section 10(4A) of the Act. He would

further contend that it is not open to the Management to knock at

the doors of this Court, on passing of an order on every

interlocutory application, unless it touches upon the jurisdiction of

the Labour Court. He would seek dismissal of these petitions.

6. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondents have relied on certain judgments of the Apex Court

and various High Courts in support of their submissions, all of which

would bear consideration qua their relevance in the case at hand.

7. In furtherance whereof, the issue that requires an answer

at the hands of this Court is, whether Section 10 of the CPC is

applicable to the proceedings before Labour Court, be it an

industrial reference or individual dispute by the workmen.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the 155

material on record. In furtherance whereof, the pivotal question

that arises for consideration is:

"Whether Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to

proceedings pending before the Labour Court under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, so as to warrant a stay of

individual industrial disputes, pending disposal of a

collective reference?

CONSIDERATION:

9. Before venturing to consider the core issue in the lis, it is

necessary to reiterate the peripheral facts. As observed

hereinabove, the subject petitions revolve round the dispute raised

by individual workmen as they have been dismissed from service on

27-11-2024 on account of grave misconduct. The misconduct arose

by participation in a strike organized by the Union which the

petitioner/Management terms it to be illegal. Since workmen were

active members of the Union, for participation in the alleged illegal

strike, the Management dismisses individual workmen. The

conciliation efforts that took place prior to reference in Ref.No.14 of

2024 pertain to whether the strike was in accordance with the Act, 156

with particular reference to Sections 22 and 23, which govern the

legality and prohibition of a strike. Since individual dismissal orders

are passed, individual disputes are raised by the workmen invoking

Section 10(4A) of the Act.

10. The Management owing to the fact that every workman

has preferred individual dispute and the appropriate Government

has referred the issue whether the strike was legal or otherwise in

Ref.No.14 of 2024, comes up with a novel idea, of filing an

application under Section 10 of the CPC which deals with arrest of

the suit. Section 10 of the CPC reads as follows:

"10. Stay of suit.--No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation.--The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action."

Section 10 of the CPC mandates that a suit which is a repetition

between the same parties for the same relief on the same cause of 157

action must stand arrested to avoid multiplicity and conflict of

orders.

11. At the outset, in the case at hand the Management is the

same, dismissal orders are individually passed and every workmen

exercising his right under Section 10(4A) of the Act has instituted

individual dispute. Therefore, it becomes necessary to notice

Section 10(4A) of the Act. It reads as follows:

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals: .... .... .... "(4-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 9- C and in this section, in the case of a dispute falling within the scope of Section 2-A, the individual workman concerned may, within six months from the date of communication to him of the order of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination or the date of commencement of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987, whichever is later, apply, in the prescribed manner, to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute and the Labour Court shall dispose of such application in the same manner as a dispute referred under sub-section (1)."

A workman being aggrieved by an order of dismissal or termination

is entitled to raise a dispute during the time frame prescribed under

Section 10(4A) of the Act. It is the right of every workman to

challenge an order that hits him hard. Therefore, close to 140

disputes sprang. Taking cue from the pendency of various cases, 158

the petitioner/ Management files an application under Section 10 of

the CPC. The application and the accompanying affidavit filed in KID

No.45 of 2024, read as follows:

"Application filed by the Respondent u/s 10 read with section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure and section 11 of ID Act.

Here in the advocate for the Respondent most respectfully begs to submit as under.

That for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that, the Hon'ble court be pleased to stay the proceedings in the present matter until the final disposal of Ref No. 14 of 2024 to meet the ends of justice.

Hubballi Sd/- Date: 07/05/2025 Advocate for the Respondent (Shridhar Prabhu)" .... .... ....

BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT AT HUBBALLI

KID No.: 45/2024 Between R.K. totaganti ...Claimant

And

BDK Valves Private Limited ... Respondent

Affidavit

I, Shyam Mehta, S/o Bhimal Mehta, aged 33 years, residing at 'Navjeevan', house no. 12, cross road no. 4, beside Shagun apartment, Keshwapur, Hubli - 580023, representing the Petitioner in my capacity as the Director of BDK Valves Private Limited, a Private Limited Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered 159

office at 47/48, opposite Hubbali Airport, Gokul Road, Hubli 580031, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:

1. I am the Director of the Respondent Company and I am well conversant with the facts of the case, and hence I am swearing to this Affidavit.

2. That the workman has filed the present challenge to the dismissal order dated 27th November 2024, issued by the Respondent on account of grave misconduct.

3. That the said misconduct directly arose as a consequence of, and in furtherance of, an illegal strike organized by the union, of which the workman is an active member and participated in.

4. That the legality of the said strike is currently under adjudication before this Hon'ble Court in Ref No. 14 of 2024. The said reference pertains to the determination of whether the strike was in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Sections 22 and 23, which govern the legality and prohibition of strikes.

5. The Respondent submits that the outcome of Ref No. 14/2024 will have a direct and substantial impact on the present matter, as the foundation of the dismissal order lies in the workman's involvement in the said illegal strike.

6. That the proceeding with the present case while Ref No. 14 of 2024 is pending would prejudice the Respondent Management, as the legality of the strike is a critical issue that underpins the alleged misconduct. Deciding this matter without the prior determination of the strike's legality would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity.

7. The Respondent further submits that allowing this case to proceed without resolving Ref No. 14 of 2024 could result in conflicting findings, which would be detrimental to the effective and efficient administration of justice.

I swear that the contents of the above affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therein. 160

Wherefore the Hon'ble court be pleased to allow the accompanying application and stay the proceedings in the present matter until the final disposal of Ref No. 14 of 2024 to meet the ends of justice.

Hubballi Sd/- Date: 06/05/2025 Deponent

I say that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief."

(Emphasis added)

The application is filed invoking Section 10 read with Section 151 of

the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 11 of the Act. Objections

are filed by the workmen to the said application. One of the

objections so filed reads as follows:

"OBJECTIONS TO THE INTERIM APPLICATION DTD. 07.05.2025 FILED BY THE MANAGEMENT UNDER SECTION 10 R/W. SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.

Herein the objections on behalf of the claimant workman as under-

1 It is submitted that, prima facie, the application of the applicant/respondent management is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.

2. It is submitted that the proceedings of Labour Courts and industrial Tribunals are the summery proceedings are not like civil suits and cannot pass orders on Interim applications, which amounts to piece meal. The Supreme Court has specifically held in D.P. Maheshwari V/s. Delhi Administration & Ors. case reported in 1984 AIR 153. The importance of holistic approach in resolving industrial disputes, rather than isolating specific 161

issues. Therefore, in view of the same, the application is not maintainable.

3. It is submitted that, before filing any application, there must be written statement and in the said written statement, they must taken up the defence/contentions. then only such applications may be filed. But in the instant case, the respondent management has not filed any written statement. Hence under the circumstances such application is not maintainable.

4. It is submitted that, admittedly under Section 11(3) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, R/w. Rule 24 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 it is specifically mentioned regarding applicability of C.P.C., namely,

a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath,

b) compelling the production of documents and material objects c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed.

except above, other provisions of C.P.C not applicable to the proceedings of Labour Courts Admittedly Section 10 of C.P.C. is not applicable to the proceedings of the Labour Courts as held by the Supreme Court in a case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences V/s. C.Parashuram. More over Section 151 of C.P.C. is not applicable as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 a special enactment general principles not applicable. The Labour Court can exercise its power under Section 11 of I.D. Act, not under Section 151 C.P.C. Therefore, on this ground also the application is liable to be dismissed.

5. It is submitted that, the Reference No. 14/2024 is refereed by the Government of Karnataka under Section 10(1) (c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and said dispute is raised under Section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is raised by the Union, The Vice 162

President, Weir BDK Workers Union, No.47/48 Gokul Road, Hubballi is the party in this case. But the present case is filed by an employee individually, challenging the illegal order of termination dtd. 27/11/2024 under Section 10(4-A) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. More over the claimant is not a party to the proceedings under Reference No. 14/2024. The parties, cause of action and provisions of law are different. Therefore, on this ground also the application is liable to be dismissed.

6. It is submitted that admittedly, the claimant was a permanent employee, served more than 15 years, but the management has terminated, without issuing notice, paying the compensation and conducting an enquiry, which is mandatory. Admittedly I.D.No.339/2019, Ref. No.9/2023 and many conciliation proceedings were pending while passing the order of termination, thereby the management violated the mandatory provisions of Section 33 1(b) and 33 2 (b) as held by the Supreme Court in a constitutional Bench. Decision, popularly known as Jaipur Zilla case reported in 2002 I LLJ 834 and recent decision of Supreme Court (3 Bench) in Civil Appeal No.5897 of 2021. To escape from the clutches of mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, also to protract the matter on one or the other grounds, to harass and also to bring pressure on the claimant workman, have filed this application.

7. It is submitted that due to sudden, surprise acts of the management, claimant is un-employed, age barred and no source of income and even the management has not paid the full and final settlement/pensionary benefits. Therefore, the claimant workman is literally on street.

8. It is submitted that the management has not at all giving respect to the provision of laws of the land, acting like a dictator and even the officials of the management does not have humanitarian approach.

Therefore, it is most humbly prayed that, kindly dismiss the application with heavy compensatory costs.

Hubballi Sd/- 163

Date: 08/05/2025 Advocate for Claimant Worman."

Considering the application and the objections, the concerned Court

frames an issue with regard to application of Section 10 of the CPC

to the dispute and answers by the following order:

".... .... ....

6. The following points that would arise for my consideration are:

1) Whether the application filed under Section 10 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. and Section 11 of I.D. Act, by the respondent is maintainable?

2) What Order? 7. My answers to the above points are:

Point No.1 In the Negative.

Point No.2-As per final order for the following:

REASONS

8. Point No. 1: On perusal of the averments made in the said application and objections filed by the claimant, it is an admitted fact that, the claimant being the workman of the respondent-company and it is also an admitted fact that, the respondent-company have terminated the claimant 27.11.2024. Against the termination order passed by the respondent, the present claimant has filed the petition under Section 10(4-A) of I.D. Act. praying for, to set-aside the termination order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the respondent. The respondent have appeared through their counsel, but inspite of giving sufficient time they fails to file counter statement. 164

9. Further it is an admitted fact that, after illegal termination order passed by the respondent, the Vice President M/s. Weir BDK Valves Workers Union, 47/48, Gokul Road, Hubballi, have filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi Regional Office, Belagavi, against the respondent challenging the dismissal order and the Government has passed the order and referred the dispute for adjudication before this Court against the respondent. Accordingly, as per reference order dated 15.11.2024 this Court given Ref. No. 14/2024 by issuing notice to both the parties and both parties have appeared and reference petition No. 14/2024 is pending before this Court. The specific prayer sought by the respondent is that, to stay the further proceedings of this case, till full and final settlement of Ref. No. 14/2024.

10. Admittedly, the said reference petition is filed on behalf of said Union before the Government of Karnataka, Labour Department, Bengaluru in the name and style of M/s. Weir BDK Valves Workers Union. But in the present case, the claim petition is filed under Section 10(4-A) of I.D. Act. filed under individual capacity praying for, to set aside the termination order passed by the respondent. The contention of the respondent-management is that, after reference petition filed before this Court subsequently, the present claim petition is filed and the said Ref. No. 14/2024 and the claim petition filed by the claimant are parallel proceedings and thereby only, to stay the present case till the final adjudication of reference petition and for that reason, the respondent have filed the present application under Section 10 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. and Section 11 of I.D. Act.

11. Whether the present application filed under Section 10 of C.P.C. is aptly applicable to the case in hand or not is to be the point for consideration. On that context, the respondent counsel vehemently argued by filing written arguments also. contending to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting judgments. Further they have relied citation; Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 149 of 2022, Jayapal K.M. V/s. The Management of Shakti Precision Components(India) Limited and Shakti Precision Components (India) Private Limited V/s. Jayapal K.M., MANU/KA/1312/2024, equivalent citation: 2024:KHC:6682, decided on 16th 165

February 2024. This SABOU judgment reinforces the principle that, using abusive or derogatory language in a workplace constitutes serious mis-conduct. In another case of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited V/s. MV Nervary Manu/SC/0138/2005: emphasized that, The dismissal for mis-conduct, particularly involving abusive language, is neither disproportionate nor excessive. The judgment clarified that, disciplinary measures, including termination, are justified to maintain workplace discipline. In the said citation domestic/disciplinary enquiry conducted by the company. Whereas, in this case domestic enquiry not conducted by the respondent. Hence, the facts and circumstances of the said citation and present case are altogether different. Hence, the said citations are not applicable to case in hand.

12. In another citation relied by the counsel for respondent: The Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal V/s. Bank of Baroda, 1984(1) SCR 85, held that:

"Under Section 11(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Labour Court/Tribunal and other authorities therein have same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of certain matters which include enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and compelling the production of documents and material objects. It is consistently held and accepted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to proceedings before the Labour Court/Tribunal but essentially the rules of natural justice are to be observed in such proceedings. Labour Court/Tribunals have power to call for any evidence at any stage of the proceedings if the facts and circumstances of the case demand the same to meet the ends of justice in a given situation."

13. Whereas, the counsel for claimant have submitted with respect to applicability of Section 10 of C.P.C. strictly Section 10 of C.P.C. is not applicable to present case in hand. In that context, they have relied citation reported in (2005) 25 AIC 34, between National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences V/s. C. Parameshwara, decided 13.12.2004. It is held that, "Civil 166

Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Section 10 Stay of suit Applicability of - Res subjudice applicable to a suit instituted in Civil Court and cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute." In this citation the respondent C. Parameshwara was appointed as senior pharmacist in the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences and he was misappropriated the drugs to the extent of Rs. 1,79,668.46 and he was dismissed from service on account of shortage of aforesaid amount and departmental enquiry was conducted and respondent/workman has challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court. The award has been passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman. The Labour Court have passed the award to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and against that order the Management have preferred the W.P. No. 24348 of 2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and said appellant in that case was also filed application before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 10 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., to stay the OS No. 1732/1995 pending before the City Civil Court till disposal of the W.P. The City Civil Court have dismissed the application filed under Section 10 of C.P.C. Against the order passed by the City Civil Court, the said applicant was preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 2211/2003 before the Hon'ble High Court, to stay the suit filed before the City Civil Court in OS No. 1732/1995 which was filed by the claimant/workman and that Revision Petition was also dismissed. Against that order the said National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences preferred Civil Appeal No. 8038 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court though they have allowed the said appeal clarified that, "it will neither bind the trial Court in the pending civil suit No. 1732/1995 nor the High Court in the pending writ petition No. 24348/2002. All questions on merit are expressly kept open. Nothing we have stated in this judgment will affect the rights of the parties." It is also specifically mentioned that. "Section 10 of C.P.C. is referable to a suit instituted in a Civil Court. The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before the Civil Court. They are not the Courts of concurrent jurisdiction." Therefore, in the 167

present case in hand, the respondent who have filed the application under Section 10 of C.P.C.. to stay the present proceedings pending before this Court on account of Ref. No. 14/2024 which is also pending before this Court for adjudication as averred in the said application is not applicable to the case in hand, because the Section 10 of C.P.C., does not apply to the case in hand.

14. In the instant case, the Ref. No. 14/2024 which is pending before this Court, in that proceedings filed by the Union (M/s. Weir BDK Valves Workers Union) Vice President is party to the proceedings against the present respondent. The present claim statement filed by the claimant under individual capacity U/s. 10(4-A) of I.D. Act, on account of illegal termination order passed by the respondent on 27.11.2024. There is no bar for filing individual claim statement. The claimant being the workman of the respondent-company. The claim made by the claimant in individual claim statement, he has prayed for, to set-aside the termination order dated 27.11.2024 and to reinstate him with continuity of service and other reliefs. In the instant case, as per the objections raised by the claimant: without filing the counter statement by taking such defence, the filing of said application is not at all maintainable. Only with an intention to protract the proceedings the said application is filed. There is no any document produced by the present respondent alleging that, the present claimant being one of the participant in the alleged strike of the said Union and it will affect the relief sought by the claimant in the present claim statement, as they are the parallel proceedings. Therefore, the question of stay of further proceedings of this case on account of Ref. No. 14/2024 which is pending before this Court is not sustainable. Hence, in the light of above observations, I constrained to hold Point No.1 in the Negative.

15. Point No. 2: For the aforesaid reasons. I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The application filed under Section 10 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. and Section 11 of I.D. Act, by the respondent i.e., I.A. No. III is hereby dismissed on cost of Rs. 10,000/-."

(Emphasis added) The issue, as observed hereinabove, is applicability of Section 10 of

the CPC to these proceedings.

12. The legal position in this regard, stands crystallized by the

judgment of the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES v.

C.PARAMESHWARA1 wherein it has been held unequivocally that

Section 10 CPC is referable only to suits instituted in civil Courts.

The Apex Court holds as follows:

".... .... ....

8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same issue by two courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the

(2005) 2 SCC 256

same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contradistinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue". Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject- matter in both the proceedings is identical.

9. In the present case, the appellant had initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein on charges of misappropriation of drugs. In the said disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was found guilty of alleged misappropriation of drugs. On the basis of the findings arrived at in the disciplinary enquiry, the respondent herein was removed. The extent of the loss suffered by the appellant, as found in the disciplinary enquiry, was Rs 1,79,668.46. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent moved the Labour Court. On 29-10-2001, the Labour Court passed an award setting aside the order of removal dated 12-4-1993. Being aggrieved, the appellant instituted Writ Petition No. 24348 of 2002. The appellant has also instituted Civil Suit No. 1732 of 1995 for recovery of the loss suffered by it to the tune of Rs 1,79,668.46 with interest. Thus, as can be seen from the above facts, both the proceedings operated in different spheres. The subject-matter of the two proceedings is entirely distinct and different. The cause of action of the two proceedings is distinct and different. The cause of action in filing the said suit is the loss suffered by the appellant on account of the shortage of drugs. On the other hand, in the said Writ Petition No. 24348 of 2002, the management has challenged the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement of the respondent.

10. As stated above, Section 10 CPC is referable to a suit instituted in a civil court. The proceedings before the Labour Court cannot be equated with the proceedings before a civil court. They are not the courts of concurrent jurisdiction. In the

circumstances, Section 10 CPC has no application to the facts of this case."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, has declared in unambiguous terms, that Section

10 applies only to suits instituted in Civil Courts, and that Tribunals

such as Labour Courts are not Civil Courts of concurrent

jurisdiction, so as to attract the statutory mandate of Section 10

CPC. The elucidation by the Apex Court forecloses the petitioner's

argument entirely. Therefore, Section 10 CPC stands excluded.

Once the principle plank of the application before the Labour

Court is found to be legally untenable, the edifice erected

upon it collapses. The Labour Court, therefore, cannot be faulted

for rejecting the application. The Apex Court further holds that the

object of Section 10 is to prevent all Courts of concurrent

jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between

the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. Section 10

thus applies where the subject of both the suits are identical. An

industrial dispute is not a suit.

13. The only exception carved out by the Apex Court for

invocation of provisions of the CPC is with regard to Section 11,

which deals with principles of res judicata. As the Act does not deal

with the principles of res judicata, the Apex Court holds that the

principle of res judicata is made applicable to proceedings before

the Labour Court. The Apex Court in fact, in plethora of cases, held

that principle of res judicata as obtaining in Section 11 of the CPC is

applicable even to writ proceedings, including a public interest

petition. The distinction carved out by the Apex Court is in the case

of CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, FERTILIZERS AND

CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE LIMITED v. GENERAL SECRETARY,

FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS TRAVANCORE EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION2. The reason rendered by the Apex Court for

making it applicable is as follows:

".... .... ....

23. This Court in R.C. Tiwari case [R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 125: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1128] ruled that the reference to the Labour Court made by the State under Section 10 of the ID Act was hit by the principle of res judicata defined under Section 11 of the Code and, therefore, the reference made to the Labour Court was barred. It was held that the issue of termination of the employee was earlier gone into by the Deputy Registrar on its

(2019) 11 SCC 323

merits and the same once answered against the employee, it could not be again gone into in the reference proceedings by the Labour Court. This is what is held in para 4: (R.C. Tiwari case [R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 125: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1128], SCC p. 127)

"4. Admittedly, there is a finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar upholding the misconduct of the petitioner. That constitutes res judicata. No doubt, Section 11 CPC does not in terms apply because it is not a court, but a tribunal, constituted under the Societies Act is given special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid down thereunder mutatis mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It operates as res judicata. Thus, we find that the High Court is well justified in holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law."

24. The second case is Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan [Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan, (2004) 1 SCC 68 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 32] . In this case also, this Court again examined the question as to whether the principle of res judicata including the principles of constructive res judicata applies to the industrial adjudication or not. Though this Court did not notice the law laid down in R.C. Tiwari [R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Mktg. Federation Ltd., (1997) 5 SCC 125: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1128], yet it took the same view, as is clear from paras 10 and 11:

(Pondicherry Khadi case [Pondicherry Khadi & Village Industries Board v. P. Kulothangan, (2004) 1 SCC 68: 2004 SCC (L&S) 32], SCC pp. 71-72)

"10. In our opinion, the appellant has correctly contended that the industrial dispute pertained to the same subject-matter dealt with in the earlier writ proceedings and was barred by the principles of res judicata. It is well established that although the entire Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to industrial adjudication, the principles of res judicata laid down under Section 11 of the Code are applicable [Workmen v. Straw Board Mfg. Co. Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 681: 1974 SCC (L&S) 406] including the principles of constructive res judicata. Thus in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806 : 1977 SCC (L&S) 362] it was held that the

dismissal of a writ petition challenging disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the charged officer had not been afforded reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations against him, operated as res judicata in respect of the subsequent suit in which the order of dismissal was challenged on the ground that it was incompetently passed. This Court also held: (SCC p.

808)

[I]t may be that the same set of facts may give rise to two or more causes of action. If in such a case a person is allowed to choose and sue upon one cause of action at one time and to reserve the other for subsequent litigation, that would aggravate the burden of litigation. Courts have therefore treated such a course of action as an abuse of its process.

11. The principle of res judicata operates on the court. It is the courts which are prohibited from trying the issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier proceedings between the same parties, provided the court trying the subsequent proceeding is satisfied that the earlier court was competent to dispose of the earlier proceedings and that the matter had been heard and finally decided by such court. Here the parties to the writ petition filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court and the industrial dispute were the same. The cause of action in both was the refusal of the appellant to allow the respondent to rejoin service. The Madras High Court was competent to decide the issue which it did with a reasoned order on merits and after a contested hearing. This was not a case where the earlier proceedings had been disposed of on any technical ground as was the case in Workmen v. Cochin Port Trust [Workmen v. Cochin Port Trust, (1978) 3 SCC 119: 1978 SCC (L&S) 438] and Pujari Bai v. MadanGopal [Pujari Bai v. Madan Gopal, (1989) 3 SCC 433]. The "lesser relief" of reinstatement which was the subject-matter of the industrial dispute had already been claimed by the respondent in the writ petition. This was refused by the High Court. The correctness of the decision in the writ proceedings has not been challenged by the respondent. The decision was, therefore, final. Having got an adverse order in the writ petition, it was not open to the respondent to reagitate the issue before the Labour Court and the Labour Court was incompetent to entertain the dispute raised by the respondent and

redecide the matter in the face of the earlier decision of the High Court in the writ proceedings."

The Apex Court holds that Courts are prohibited from trying the

issue which was directly and substantially in issue in the earlier

proceedings between the same parties. I have thought it

appropriate to quote the aforesaid judgment only to draw the

limited applicability of CPC to the proceedings under the Act. The

said judgment admittedly cannot be pressed into service in the case

at hand. The issue in this petition revolves round the applicability of

Section 10 of the CPC to the proceedings before the Labour Court.

In the light of the law being unequivocal as held by the Apex Court

in the case of NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND

NEURO SCIENCES, the impugned order rejecting the application

therefore, calls for no interference. The other provision that is

invoked is Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 vests the Labour Court

and the National Tribunal to have the same powers, as are vested

in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when trying

a suit in respect of those enumerated therein only. Section 11 of

the Act reads as follows:

"11. Procedure and powers of conciliation officers, Boards, Courts and Tribunals.--(1) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, an arbitrator, a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority concerned may think fit.

(2) A conciliation officer or a member of a Board, or Court or the presiding officer of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal may for the purpose of inquiry into any existing or apprehended industrial dispute, after giving reasonable notice, enter the premises occupied by any establishment to which the dispute relates.

(3) Every Board, Court,Labour Court, Tribunal and National Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely--

(a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;

(b) compelling the production of documents and material objects;

(c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses;

(d) in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed;

and every inquiry or investigation by a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(4) A conciliation officer may enforce the attendance of any person for the purpose of examination of such person or call forand inspect any document which he has ground for considering to be relevant to the industrial dispute or to be necessary for the purpose of verifying the implementation of any award or carrying out any other duty imposed on him under this Act, and for the aforesaid purposes, the conciliation officer

shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him or of compelling the production of documents.

(5) A Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal may, if it so thinks fit, appoint one or more persons having special knowledge of the matter under consideration as assessor or assessors to advise it in the proceeding before it.

(6) All conciliation officers, members of a Board or Court and the presiding officers of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(7) Subject to any rules made under this Act, the costs of, and incidental to, any proceeding before a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be in the discretion of that Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall have full power to determine by and to whom and to what extent and subject to what conditions, if any, such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid and such costs may, on application made to the appropriate Government by the person entitled, be recovered by that Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(8) Every Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Sections 345, 346 and 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(9) Every award made, order issued or settlement arrived at by or before Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal shall be executed in accordance with the procedure laid down for execution of orders and decree of a civil court under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).

(10) The Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, shall transmit any award, order or settlement to a civil court having jurisdiction and such civil court shall executed the award, order or settlement as if it were a decree passed by it."

Section 11 thus, has a limited application of the provisions of the

CPC, for what is found as clauses (a) to (d). It can, by no stretch of

imagination, lead to filing of an application under Section 10 of the

CPC, as the Apex Court clearly holds that the Tribunal is not a Civil

Court, a civil suit is not an industrial dispute pending before a

Labour Court, the Courts are different, the jurisdictions are

different. Therefore, invocation of Section 11 even, will not save

the application filed before the concerned Court. On this ground as

well, the impugned order rejecting the application calls for no

interference.

14. Additionally, it is necessary to notice that industrial

adjudication is founded upon the salutary objective of speedy and

efficacious resolution of disputes. The Apex Court has repeated

cautioned Courts against entertaining challenges to interlocutory

orders, which have the effect of stalling proceedings and defeating

the legislative purpose of swift industrial justice, resulting in grave

prejudice to the cause of the workman. The Apex Court in D.P.

MAHESHWARI v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION3 wherein the Apex

Court has held as follows:

"It was just the other day [ See (1983) 4 SCC 214] that we were bemoaning the unbecoming devices adopted by certain employers to avoid decision of industrial disputes on merits. We noticed how they would raise various preliminary objections, invite decision on those objections in the first instance, carry the matter to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and delay a decision of the real dispute for years, sometimes for over a decade. Industrial peace, one presumes, hangs in the balance in the meanwhile. We have now before us a case where a dispute originating in 1969 and referred for adjudication by the Government to the Labour Court in 1970 is still at the stage of decision on a preliminary objection. There was a time when it was thought prudent and wise policy to decide preliminary issues first. But the time appears to have arrived for a reversal of that policy. We think it is better that tribunals, particularly those entrusted with the task of adjudicating labour disputes where delay may lead to misery and jeopardise industrial peace, should decide all issues in dispute at the same time without trying some of them as preliminary issues. Nor should High Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution stop proceedings before a tribunal so that a preliminary issue may be decided by them. Neither the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution nor the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 may be allowed to be exploited by those who can well afford to wait to the detriment of those who can ill afford to wait by dragging the latter from court to court for adjudication of peripheral issues, avoiding decision on issues more vital to them. Article 226 and Article 136 are not meant to be used to break the resistance of workmen in this fashion. Tribunals and

(1983) 4 SCC 293

courts who are requested to decide preliminary questions must therefore ask themselves whether such threshold part-

adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to other woeful consequences. After all tribunals like Industrial Tribunals are constituted to decide expeditiously special kinds of disputes and their jurisdiction to so decide is not to be stifled by all manner of preliminary objections and journeyings up and down. It is also worthwhile remembering that the nature of the jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate while that under Article 136 is primarily supervisory but the court may exercise all necessary appellate powers to do substantial justice. In the exercise of such jurisdiction neither the High Court nor this Court is required to be too astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by special tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issues.

2. Having sermonised this much, we may now proceed to state the facts which provoked the sermon. The appellant D.P. Maheshwari was an employee of Toshniwal Brothers Pvt. Ltd., when his services were terminated with effect from July 28, 1969. He raised an industrial dispute and on July 3, 1970 the Lt. Governor of Delhi referred the dispute for adjudication to the Additional Labour Court, Delhi under Sections 10(1)(c) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred for adjudication to the Labour Court was:

"Whether the termination of services of Shri D.P. Maheshwari is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect." The management straightaway questioned the reference by filing Writ Petition No. 159 of 1972 in the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on May 22, 1972. Thereafter the management raised a preliminary contention before the Labour Court that D.P. Maheshwari was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reference was therefore incompetent. The Labour Court tried the question whether D.P. Maheshwari was a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as a preliminary issue. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. After referring to the evidence of the employee's witnesses the Labour Court said: "Thus according to the evidence of the claimant's

witnesses the claimant was employed mainly for clerical duties and he did discharge the same." The Labour Court then referred to the evidence of the witnesses examined by the management and said: "Thus the said evidence falls far short of proving that the claimant was in fact discharging mainly administrative or supervisory duties."

The Labour Court then proceeded to refer to the documents produced by the management and observed:

"Thus the documents filed by the respondent do not go to show that the real nature of the duties discharged by the claimant was supervisory or administrative in nature."

The Labour Court next referred to what it considered to be an admission on the part of the management who had classified all their employees into three separate Classes A, B and C, Class A described as 'Managerial', Class B described as 'Supervisory' and Class C described as 'Other Staff'. The name of D.P. Maheshwari was shown in Class C. After reviewing the entire evidence the Labour Court finally recorded the following finding:

"From the above discussion, it is clear that the claimant's evidence shows that he was doing mainly clerical work of maintaining certain registers preparing drafts and seeking instructions from the superiors and respondents' lawyers during the period of his services though designated Accounts Officer or officer on special duty or store purchase officer....

As a result, in my opinion it has to be held that the nature of the main duties being discharged by the claimant was clerical and not supervisory or administrative despite his designation as officer. Accordingly, he has to be held to be a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court, later, in NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CEMENT &

BUILDING MATERIALS v. STATE OF HARYANA4 has while

reiterating D P MAHESHWARI supra has held as follows:

".... .... ....

11. Usually, whenever a reference comes up before the Industrial Tribunal, the establishment, in order to delay the proceedings, raises the dispute whether it is an 'industry' as defined in Section 2(j); or whether the dispute referred to it for adjudication is an "industrial dispute" within the scope of Section 2(k) and also whether the employees are 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s). A request is made with that these questions may be determined as preliminary issues so that if the decision on these questions are in the affirmative, the Tribunal may proceed to deal with the real dispute on merits.

12. We, however, cannot shut our eyes to the appalling situation created by such preliminary issues which take long years to settle as the decision of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue is immediately challenged in one or the other forum including the High Court and proceedings in the reference are stayed which continue to lie dormant till the matter relating to the preliminary issue is finally disposed of.

13. This Court in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe [(1975) 2 SCC 661 : 1975 SCC (L&S) 443 :

(1975) 2 LLJ 379 : (1976) 1 SCR 361] in order to obviate undue delay in the adjudication of the real dispute, observed that the Industrial Tribunals should decide the preliminary issues as also the main issues on merits altogether so that there may not be any further litigation at the interlocutory stage. It was further observed that there was no justification for a party to the proceedings to stall the final adjudication of the dispute referred to

(1996) 3 SCC 206

the Tribunal by questioning the decision of the Tribunal on the preliminary issue before the High Court.

14. Again in S.K. Verma v. Mahesh Chandra [(1983) 4 SCC 214 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 510 : 1983 Lab IC 1483 :

(1983) 3 SCR 799] this Court strongly disapproved the practice of raising frivolous preliminary objections at the instance of the employer to delay and defeat the purpose of adjudication on merits.

15. In D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Admn. [(1983) 4 SCC 293 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 527 : 1983 Lab IC 1629 :

(1983) 3 SCR 949] this Court speaking through O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that the policy to decide the preliminary issue required a reversal in view of the "unhealthy and injudicious practices resorted to for unduly delaying the adjudication of industrial disputes for the resolution of which an informal forum and simple procedure were devised with avowed object of keeping them from the dilatory practices of civil courts". The Court observed that all issues whether preliminary or otherwise, should be decided together so as to rule out the possibility of any litigation at the interlocutory stage.

To the same effect is the decision in Workmen v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [(1984) 4 SCC 392 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 6 : 1984 Lab IC 1573 : (1985) 1 SCR 641]

16. The facts in the instant case indicate that the appellant adopted the old tactics of raising a preliminary dispute so as to prolong the adjudication of industrial dispute on merits. It raised the question whether its activities constituted an 'Industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and succeeded in getting a preliminary issue framed on that question. The Tribunal was wiser. It first passed an order that it would be heard as a preliminary issue, but subsequently, by change of mind, and we think rightly, it decided to hear the issue along with other issues on merits at a later stage of the proceedings. It was at this stage that the High Court was approached by the appellant with the grievance that the Industrial Tribunal, having once decided to hear the matter as a preliminary issue, could not change its mind

and decide to hear that issue along with other issues on merits. The High Court rightly refused to intervene in the proceedings pending before the Industrial Tribunal at an interlocutory stage and dismissed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision of the High Court is fully in consonance with the law laid down by this Court in its various decisions referred to above and we do not see any occasion to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, sounded a

clear note of warning against the tendency to raise

preliminary objections and carry interlocutory orders to

higher forums, thereby converting industrial adjudication

into an interminable contest. The Apex Court underscored

that industrial disputes must be decided expeditiously and

that the parties ought not be permitted to obstruct

proceedings by repeated interruptions at intermediate

stages. The Apex Court was considering orders on preliminary

issue being brought before the Constitutional Courts by the

employers.

15. In the present case, the respondents are workmen