IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH 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 D igitally REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HR signed by …RESPONDENT VASANTHA KUMARY B K (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE COURT OF 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 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 Labo