Fouress Engineering Karmika Sangha vs Management Of Fouress Engg (I) Pvt Ltd
2026 Latest Caselaw 271 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Fouress Engineering Karmika Sangha vs Management Of Fouress Engg (I) Pvt Ltd on 20 January, 2026

                                       -1-
                                                 WA No. 1357 of 2025



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

                                    PRESENT
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
                                                                       ®
                                       AND
                  THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
                     WRIT APPEAL NO. 1357 OF 2025 (L-RES)
            BETWEEN:

            1.    FOURESS ENGINEERING KARMIKA SANGHA
                  NO.25 BYRAPPA LAYOUT NAGARASHETTIHALLI
                  BENGALURU 560094
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
                                                        ...APPELLANT
            (BY SRI. K S SUBRAHMANYA., ADVOCATE)

            AND:

            1.    MANAGEMENT OF FOURESS ENGG (1) PVT., LTD.,
                  PLOT NO.2, PHASE II, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
                  BENGALURU 560058
Digitally         REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HR
signed by
VASANTHA                                                 ...RESPONDENT
KUMARY B
K           (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF         THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA
            KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR
            RECORDS IN WP No-31178/2019 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT
            THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
            LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 08.07.2025 IN WP No-
            31178/2019 HOLDING THAT THE FAIRNESS OF DOMESTIC
            ENQUIRY BY THE LABOUR COURT WOULD BE RES JUDICATA
            AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WP, ETC.


                THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
            JUDGMENT    ON    04.11.2025,  COMING    ON    FOR
                                  -2-
                                             WA No. 1357 of 2025



PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K
SINGH., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

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


                         CAV JUDGMENT

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

The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the

judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated

08.07.2025 in W.P.No.31178/2019 whereby the writ petition

filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in

the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

3. The Petitioner-Union challenged the order of First

Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru dated 06.05.2019 in

Reference No.22/2011 while filing W.P.No.31178/2019. The

Labour Court had held that the issue of fairness of domestic

enquiry would not be again looked into in view of the detailed

finding of the Industrial Tribunal in the proceedings between

the parties under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Tribunal

Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act'). The said

issue would be barred by principle of res judicata. The learned

Single Judge has conferred the view taken by the Labour Court.

4. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this

appeal are that the respondent - Management had dismissed

three workmen on 01.10.2002, 05.06.2002 and 13.10.2000. As

the industrial dispute regarding the charter of demands was

pending, the respondent - Management filed the applications

under Section 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act before the

Industrial Tribunal seeking approval of the dismissal of the

three workmen as a result of the domestic enquiries.

5. The respondent - Management had dismissed three

workmen viz., K. Muniyappa, K. Chandrasekharan and

G.Krishnamurthy vide the dismissal orders dated 01.10.2002,

05.06.2002 and 13.10.2000 respectively. The respondent had

filed application in S.A.Nos.30/2002, 27/2002 and 67/2002

under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act seeking approval of the

orders of dismissal against K. Muniyappa, K. Chandrasekharan

and J.Krishnamurthy respectively in ID No.67/2000 pending

before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru on charter of demands

of the workmen for improvement in wages and other service

conditions. The Industrial Tribunal had approved orders of

punishment against the three workmen.

6. The Petitioner-Union raised an industrial dispute

regarding the dismissal of the three workmen and once the

conciliation proceedings ended in failure, the industrial dispute

was referred to the First Additional Labour Court under Section

10(1)(c) of the ID Act for adjudication of the industrial dispute

as to whether the dismissal of the three workmen were justified

or not and to what relief they were entitled to.

7. On receipt of the reference, the First Additional

Labour Court registered the dispute as Reference No.22/2011.

On appearance of the parties and completion of the pleadings,

the Labour Court framed an additional issue as follows:

"Whether the domestic inquiry conducted by

the second party against the first party is fair and

proper?"

8. The Labour Court held that the domestic enquiry

conducted against the three workmen was subject to judicial

scrutiny before the industrial Tribunal in three serial

applications mentioned above filed in ID No. 67/2000.

9. It was held that while considering the three serial

applications to grant approval of inflicting the punishment of

dismissal against the three workmen, the parties led evidence

i.e., documentary and oral. All the three workmen were cross

examined and after elaborate discussion on the fairness of the

domestic enquiry, the approval was granted relying on the

judgment in the case of Chairman and Managing Director,

The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd., and

Others v. General Secretary FACT Employees Association

and others (AIR 2019 SC 1870) holding that the principle of

res judicata would apply to the labour/Industrial proceedings as

fairness of the domestic enquiry issue had already been

decided by the Industrial Tribunal in three serial applications

mentioned above between the same parties, the question of

deciding once again the additional issue No.1 regarding

domestic enquiry being just, fair and proper would not arise

and same would be barred by the principle of res judicata and

thus, the reference was answered in negative.

10. As mentioned above, the learned Single Judge has

upheld the findings on this issue of the Industrial Tribunal. The

Single Judge has framed the following issue in the impugned

judgment for answer.

"Whether the finding recorded by the Authority in a proceeding under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the issue "Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper", operates as res judicata, in the subsequent proceedings before the Labour Court, challenging the penalty of dismissal?"

11. The learned Single Judge held that the finding

recorded under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act holding that the

domestic enquiry is fair and proper that too after recording

evidence cannot be re-agitated in a subsequent Industrial

dispute challenging the order of dismissal. While dealing with

an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, if the

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court records a finding and holds

that the enquiry was not fair and proper, and thereafter,

permits the parties to lead evidence afresh on the charges

leveled, then in such situation the defect in enquiry gets cured.

In such an event, in a subsequent proceeding under Section 10

of the ID Act, there cannot be any further enquiry relating to

the fairness of the disciplinary enquiry.

12. It has been that the finding recorded in proceedings

under Section 33(2) (b) of the ID Act as to whether the

domestic inquiry was fair and proper, after recording the

evidence is binding on the parties to the proceeding as the

authority has the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the fairness of

the domestic enquiry and the said finding cannot be re-agitated

in a subsequent industrial dispute assailing the order of penalty

as the same would operate as res judicata between the parties.

However, the authority under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act

cannot adjudicate on the merits of the findings in the domestic

enquiry or on quantum of the penalty, as it does not have the

jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of the findings in the

domestic enquiry. Those questions have to be adjudicated in a

subsequent industrial dispute, if raised.

13. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners

has submitted that powers under Section 33(2) (b) and Section

10 of the ID Act are distinct. The exercise of powers under

Section 33(2)(b) would not act as res judicata in subsequent

proceedings under Section 10 of the ID Act. The proceedings

under Section 33(2)(b) are limited to forming a prima facie

view as to whether approval or dismissal of workmen can be

granted for lifting the ban imposed by Section 33 of the ID Act.

The submission is that the order passed under Section 33(2)(b)

of the ID Act would not be binding or act as res judicata in

proceedings under Section 10. The proceedings under Section

33(2) (b) are not adjudicatory in nature but involve only a

prima facie summary enquiry to lift the ban imposed. It is

further submitted that the approval granted under Section

33(2)(b) is without prejudice to the rights of the workmen to

raise an industrial dispute under Section 10 of the ID Act. In

the Industrial Dispute, the Labour Court must conduct a full-

fledged adjudication under Section 10 of the ID Act scrutinizing

all relevant circumstances including the fairness of the domestic

enquiry afresh.

14. It is further submitted that the purpose of Section

33 of the Act is merely to give or withhold permission and not

to adjudicate upon the industrial dispute. Therefore, any

findings recorded in the proceedings under Section 33 would

not operate as a res judicata in a subsequent industrial dispute

raised under Section 10 of the ID Act. An approval granted

under Section 33(2)(b) has no binding effect in the proceedings

under Sections 10(1)(c) and (d) which should be decided

independently while weighing the material adduced by the

parties before the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has

placed reliance on the following judgments in support of her

submissions.

i. Automobile Products of India Ltd. Vs. Rukmaji Bala reported in (1955) 1 SCC 92.

ii. G.McKenzie and Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen and others reported in (AIR 1959 SC 389).

iii. John D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (2019) 18 SCC 47.

16. On the other hand learned counsel for the

respondent-management has submitted that in serial

applications filed by the management seeking approval under

Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, the issue of fairness of domestic

enquiry was tried as a preliminary issue by the Industrial

Tribunal. The management had examined the Enquiry Officer as

AW-1 and adduced the documentary evidence, Exs.A1 to A9.

P. Krishnamurthy-workman examined himself as OW-1 and

adduced evidence marked Exs.01 to 35. The Industrial Tribunal

vide order dated 14.09.2005 upheld the domestic enquiry as

fair and proper. The workmen never challenged this order

regarding the enquiry being just, fair and proper, and the said

order had attained finality. After deciding the preliminary issue

of domestic enquiry, on merits, the Industrial Tribunal allowed

the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) vide order dated

11.08.2008 and approved the dismissal orders of three

workmen. The order dated 11.08.2008 was also not challenged

- 10 -

by the three workmen which attained finality. Similarly, in case

of Muniyappa and Chandasekharan the same preliminary issue

was framed regarding the domestic enquiries and after

examining the oral and documentary evidence, the domestic

enquiries were found to be fair and proper vide order dated

29.03.2008 and 09.08.2006 respectively in case of Muniyappa

and Chandrasekharan, and thereafter on merits, the

punishment of dismissal from service was approved by the

Industrial Tribunal vide orders dated 14.10.2008. These orders

were also not challenged by the other two workers.

17. The Petitioner-Union raised the industrial dispute

under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act challenging the dismissal

of these three workmen in the year 2011 i.e, after lapse of 9

years. The dispute came to be referred to the First Additional

Labour Court, Bengaluru for adjudication in Reference No.

22/2011. The Labour Court framed additional Issue No.1 on the

validity of three domestic enquiries held against the three

workmen named above. As the management raised the issue of

principle of res judicata regarding the validity of domestic

enquiry, the Labour Court, framed the additional Issue No.1 on

the validity of the domestic enquiry and vide order dated

06.05.2019 held that the issue regarding validity of all three

- 11 -

enquiries would operate as res judicata as the same had

already been decided by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of

the evidence led by the parties and posted the case for

evidence of the parties to hear on proportionality of punishment

under Section 11(A) of the ID Act.

18. Against the decision of the Labour Court on the

additional Issue No.1 the petitioner had filed the writ petition in

W.P.No.31178/2019 challenging the order dated 06.05.2019

and the learned Single Judge by the order dated 08.07.2025

has upheld the order passed by the First Additional Labour

Court.

19. The learned counsel for the respondent would

submit that since all the three domestic enquiries were held to

be fair and proper by the Industrial Tribunal in proceedings

under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act after recording evidence of

the Enquiry Officers and workmen and examining the

documentary evidence, the same would operate as res judicata.

It has been further submitted that in view of the provisions of

Section 33(2), if the enquiry is set aside and management

leads evidence on the merits of the charges and approval is

granted, then a fresh reference under Section 10 of the ID Act

- 12 -