IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 46195 OF 2017 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR AUTO PARTS (P) LTD PLOT NO. 21, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA ABBANAKUPPE VILLAGE, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA 562109.

REP BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.S NAGANAND., SR.ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B C PRABHAKAR.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. NIRANJANA K P S/O. PUTTARAJAIAH, KURUBARAHALLI, BILAGUMBA POST, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT signed by B LAVANY A …RESPONDENT (BY MISS.AVANI CHOKSHI.,ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE COURT OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS KARNATAKA LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD DATED 18.8.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IN I.D.30/2014 AT ANNEX-N;QUASH THE AWARD DATED 18.8.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.30/2014 AT ANNEX-N.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

ORAL JUDGMENT

This petition is filed by the management challenging the impugned award dated 18.08.2017, passed by III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Industrial Dispute No.30 of 2014, whereby the Labour Court has allowed the claim petition filed by the workman under Section 10 (4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’), the termination order dated 27.05.2014 came to be set aside and the management was directed to reinstate the workman to his original place with continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits within thirty days from the date of the award.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The petitioner is a private limited company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the manufacture of automobile components. The company employs approximately 358 workmen in its factory in various activities. The service conditions of the petitioner’s workmen are governed by the certified standing orders of the factory.

3. The respondent has undergone apprenticeship training in the designated trade of fitter from 13.10.2007 to 12.10.2008. Thereafter, more than a year, the respondent was engaged in Temporary Support Member (TSM) vide order dated 08.05.2010. At the time of engagement of the respondent as TSM, it was specifically mentioned that his engagement is only for a period of six moths and after which, his period would cease to be TSM. The nature of work, which claims to have been given only on temporary basis, was accepted by the workman. He was relieved from the service on 09.11.2010 after the period of six months.

4. The respondent was again engaged on a fresh contract basis as TSM for another period of six months from 10.11.2010 to 09.05.2011. Again he was enrolled from 08.08.2011 to 07.02.2012. Thereafter, due to exigencies of work, he was again taken on a fresh contract basis for a period of six months i.e., from 08.02.2012. 5. This being the state of affairs, the respondent orally submitted his candidature to the post of team member trainee. On the same day, he was interviewed, selected as team member trainee and issued an appointment order on 26.05.2012 for a period of one year from 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013. Upon completion of the training period of one year, the respondent was appointed against the vacancy as team member on 27.05.2013 on probation for a period of one year.

6. The performance of the respondent during the probationary period was found to be not satisfied. Thereafter, issued a caution letter dated 11.01.2014 describing five areas of concern. A reply was submitted regretting the incident and tendered apology. After an overall assessment of the performance of the respondent during the period of probation, it was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence, the petitioner/management did not confirm the services. Accordingly, the respondent has been relieve