IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2021 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

1. AMRUT DISTILLERIES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:

NO.36, SAMPANGI TANK ROAD BANGALORE - 560 027 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.41/1, 72ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED RUPA V SIGNATORY MR. K VISHWANATHAN Location :

High Court S/O T R KRISHNAMURTHY Of AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

Karnataka

2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (HUMAN RESOURCE)

AMRUT DISTRILLERIES LIMITED NO.36, SAMPANGI TANK ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027 AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.41/1, 72ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

…APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. NARAYANSWAMY H B AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS (ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE NO.627)

NO.157, IIND MAIN ROAD, MALLASANDRA PIEPLINE BENGALURU - 560 057.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)

- - -

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6414/2020 (L-TER) ON IA NO.1/2021 AND IA NO.2/2021 IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE APPELLANTS TO PAY WAGES IN TERMS OF SECTION 17B AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the interim order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6414/2020 (L-TER) on I.A.No.1/2021 and 2/2021. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent was working as a security guard with the appellants. He was dismissed from service on misconduct which was interfered with by the Labour Court directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent to his original post with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, which was assailed by the appellants in a writ petition. The respondent filed applications under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which came to be allowed under the impugned order.

Being aggrieved, the Management is in appeal.

3. Sri.Praveenkumar Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the applications filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent-workman has not filed affidavit in terms of Section 17B of the Act. It is further submitted that the burden was cast on the respondent- employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed and in the absence of such a plea in the form of affidavit, the applications ought not to have been allowed. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the applications and thereafter directed the respondent-workman to file affidavit, which is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL GANDHI MUSEUM Vs. SUDHIR SHARMA, Civil Appeal No.8215-16/11 dt.24.9.21, decision of the Bombay High Court in the cases of NEMCHAND S SABALE Vs. SPACO CARBURITTORS (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER, 2016 SCC Online BOM 13344, U.P.STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. Vs. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL KAMAGAR UNION, 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 297 and ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs.

SMT.K.B.JOSHI, (1987) 1 LLN 695 (Bom) (DB) and seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Keshava Murthy B., learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the learned Si