THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S ZENITH TEXTILES v. SRI T M LOKESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Writ Petition is allowed-in-part
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. 33(2)(b)
Key paragraphs
- Para 1414. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments:- (a) Blue Star Employees' Union Vs Ex Off. Principal Secy. to Govt. and another6 (b) John D' Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation7 (c) Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing- cum-Processing Service…
Judgment
not challenged the said order.
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 33- A of the Act, 1947, alleging that the provisions of the Act, 1947 were not complied with. The Labour Court, vide order dated
05.05.2016, dismissed the said application seeking prosecute the petitioner.
The respondent challenged the order of dismissal from employment by raising an industrial dispute. The Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, whereupon the following points were framed for consideration: (a) Whether the workman is justified in raising a dispute questioning the order of dismissal dated
16.11.2006, 10 years after the order? (b) Whether the management is justified in dismissing the workman from service vide order dated
16.11.2006?
The employer filed objections the claim statement and contended that the claim is hit by delay and - 6 - WP No. 13011 of 2020 laches and that the misconducts are duly established and the penalty of dismissal is justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:- (a) Zenith Textiles vs Jagadeesh D R1 (b) Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs Management of Usha Breco Ltd. and others2 (c) Mahindra and Mahindra ltd. Vs N.B Naravade and others3 (d) Dharamraj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and ors4 (e) Union of India Vs P. Gunasekaran5
Operative part
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the following judgments:- (a) Blue Star Employees' Union Vs Ex Off. Principal Secy. to Govt. and another6 (b) John D' Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation7 (c) Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing- cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another8 ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part (ii) The Award dated 27.01.2020 in Ref. No. 15/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru is modified. - 15 - WP No. 13011 of 2020 (iii) Respondent is not entitled to benefit of continuity of service from 12.04.2013 i.e. date of order in S.A No.07/2006 till 05.05.2016 i.e. the date of dismissal of Section 33-A application. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/CHS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is allowed-in-part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 33(2)(b).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 02 Apr 2026. The bench was ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.