IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 32807 OF 2013 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

STATE BANK OF INDIA LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NO.65, ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-HR SRI B.M.GIRISH.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KAVEESH SHARMA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAMALACHARAN S.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BANKS' STAFF UNION (K)

C/O STATE BANK OF INDIA, Digitally signed LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, NO.65, by THEJAS ST. MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001, KUMAR N Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS COURT OF GENERAL SECRETARY.

KARNATAKA

2. DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), SHRAM SADAN, 3^RD CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTPUR, BANGALORE - 560 022.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B D KUTTAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI R.MURALIDHARA., CGSC FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Kaveesh Sharma., counsel on behalf of Sri.Kamalacharan.S.R., for the petitioner and Sri.B.D.Kuttappa., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

2. The Captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Bengaluru in Application No.95(M-1)/2011-B1 vide Annexure-E.

3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4. Suffice it to note that the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Labour Court on preliminary issues.

The issue relates to the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in so far as the finding recorded by the Labour Court on preliminary issues. The Hon'ble Apex Court in D.P.MAHESHWARI V/S. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS in reported in (1983) 4 SCC 293 has held that High Court is not required to be astute to interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by Special Tribunals at interlocutory stages and on preliminary issue. Hence, I decline to exercise power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed on preliminary issue.

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Because of dismissal of Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

Sd/-

(JYOTI M)

JUDGE KMV,TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14