Writ Petition No. 6112 of 2023 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6112 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., (BESCOM), HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O AND M, KOLAR. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O AND M DIVISION, BESCOM, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR - 563 101.
Legal Reasoning
(BY MS. K. KOMALA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHWIN S. HALADY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G. SHIVAPPA, S/O SRI. GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT DOOMA LAYOUT CIRCLE, KEB LAYOUT, KOLAR - 563 101. 2. SRI. D. NAGARAJ S/O SRI. DHUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARUTHI DRIVING SCHOOL, KEELUKOTE, KOLAR - 563 101. 3. SRI. S.N. SUNIL KUMAR, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GY KRISHNAN HOUSE, GALPETE, KOLAR - 563 101. 4. SRI. G.K. MUNIRAJU S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT GADIGEDANAHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101. 5. SRI. A. MUNIRAJU S/O SRI. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT C/O VILLAVENKATAPPA, KEELUKOTTE, KOLAR - 563 101. 6. SRI. D. SHANKAR, S/O SRI. M. DUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MARUTHI DRIVING SCHOOL, KEELUKOTE, KOLAR - 563 101. 7. SRI. LATE A.N. VENKATASWAMY REDDY S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, (i) PAVITHRAMMA W/O LATE A.N. VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT MANIGANIHALLI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 135. 8. SRI. B. PARAMESHWARAPPA S/O SRI. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, KOLAR - 563 101. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR 9. SRI. N. GANESH S/O SRI. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.103, BESCOM COLONY, M.B. ROAD, KOLAR - 563 101. 10. SRI. P.C. RAJANAND S/O SRI. CHAKKARLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT POOVANDANAHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101. 11. SRI. N. VIJAY KUMAR S/O SRI. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, HAROHALLI, KOLAR - 563 101. (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6, R7 & R8 TO R11) …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ID NO.131/2016 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W 151 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 SEEKING THE LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RE-OPEN THE STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF FIRST PARTY AND PERMIT THE SECOND PARTY TO CROSS EXAMINE WORKMEN WITNESS-1 PRODUCED IN THE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET AT ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR Shri S.B.Mukkannappa, learned Counsel accepts notice on ORAL ORDER behalf of respondent No.7. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, in I.D.No.131/2016 wherein the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure is rejected and thereby the petitioner could not cross-examine the first party witness. It is noticed that examination-in-chief of W.W.1 was recorded on 17.08.2017 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned on several occasions for cross-examination of the said witness. Despite sufficient opportunity being given to the second party, the witness was not cross-examined. Thereafter, the Labour Court ordered that cross-examination is "taken as nil". Thereafter, the application is filed to recall the said order and to re-open the case. The workmen filed objections to the said application. The objection was accepted and the application was dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that though there is fault on the part of the second party in not cross-examining the witness, the application is filed to reopen the case and to cross-examine the witness to enable the second party to contest the case on merit. However, the said application is rejected erroneously. It is submitted that if the case is not reopened, the second party will not be in a position to effectively defend the dispute raised. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that examination-in-chief was conducted in the year 2017 and despite sufficient opportunity being granted to the second party, unnecessarily, second party has taken adjournment and rightly, the Industrial Tribunal has closed the evidence and since the application is not supported by valid reason, rightly rejected the same. 6. This court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. It is noticed from the record that the workmen have raised a dispute relating to regularization of their employment. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR The petitioners before this Court who are the second party before the Tribunal have raised a defence that workman is not entitled for regularization. Considering the nature of relief sought, this court is of the view that in case, if the second party is not permitted to cross-examine the witness, the second party would be put to disadvantage in defending the matter. Under these circumstances, the order has to be set aside on terms. 8. Since it is the second party who has taken unreasonably long time to cross-examine the witness, the second party has to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to first party. The payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- is a condition precedent to cross-examine the witness.
Decision
9. In the result, the following: i) ii) ORDER The writ petition is allowed; The impugned order dated 17.01.2023 (Annexure-A), on I.A.No.VI in I.D.No.131/2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside; iii) The application filed by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal at I.A.No.VI is allowed; - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20747 WP No. 6112 of 2023 HC-KAR iv) The petitioner/second party is permitted to cross-examine the witness subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the first party. v) The cost shall be paid before the next date of hearing and the cross-examination shall take place on the same day. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK