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.7053 OF 2020 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

M/S FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) LIMITED PLOT NO.2, 2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-HRD AND ADMINISTRATION SRI K.B.DEEPAK …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.N.MURTHY., SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.

SOMASHEKAR.,ADVOCATES)

AND:

SRI T K MUNISWAMY S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA MAJOR C/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY DOOR NO.152/3 (NEW)

MARATHALLI BENGALURU-560 032.

Digitally …RESPONDENT signed by B (BY SMT.MAITREYI KRISHNAN., FOR SRI.K.S.SUBRAMANYA., LAVANYA ADVOCATES)

Location:

HIGH COURT OF THIS WP IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.05.2018 IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.8/2002 (IN I.D.NO.28/2001) AT ANNEXURE-Q PASSED BY THE HONBLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND GRANT PERMISSION TO DISMISS THE RESPONDENT FROM SERVICE AS PER THE PROPOSED DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 13.03.2002 AT ANNEXURE-D.

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 petitioner-Management seeking to quash the impugned order dated 23.05.2018 passed in Serial Application No.8/2022 (I.D.No.28/2001), by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide Annexure-Q, and consequently, to grant permission to dismiss the respondent from service as per the proposed dismissal order dated 13.03.2002 vide Annexure-D.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Petitioner is a public limited company. The respondent was working as operator whose last drawn salary was about Rs.5,724/- per month. Petitioner submits that the settlement was signed on 30.08.1995 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’), and nearly 250 workmen have signed the settlement. Few of the workmen did not sign the settlement dated 30.08.1995 however, they were extended the benefit of settlement. The respondent is one such workman who has signed the settlement and enjoyed the benefit of settlement.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent along with few other workmen instigated and brought out an illegal strike from 16.07.1998, contrary to Clause-16 of the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 30.08.1995. The illegal strike continued till 03.01.1999. Petitioner-Management received a complaint on 16.07.1998 from Sri Uma Mahesh Naidu/AW.2 that the respondent and other workmen had gathered in front of the factory gate and were obstructing the movement of men and material of the factory.

4. In view of the same, the petitioner got issued notices dated 16.07.1998 to 104 workmen including the respondent. Despite notice, the respondent did not report for duty, continued illegal strike. Again, a letter was sent on 27.07.1998 asking the respondent and others to report for duty. However, many of the workers reported for duty, but the respondent did not. On 29.07.1998, the respondent formed a boisterous group along with others to prevent the workmen from going to work, further prevented the workers and other staff who are not interested in joining strike from continuing their work. Hence, in this regard, charge sheet-cum-notice of inquiry dated 29.09.1998 was issued to the respondent. In this connection, a meeting was conducted in the chambers of Hon'ble Deputy Chief Minister on 01.01.1999 and after prolonged discussion, workmen decided to call off the strike from 04.01.1999, and enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer, Sri H.S. Prasad, and the respondent was represented by one Sri K. Chandrashekaran. After the enquiry, a report was submitted against the respondent, finding him guilty of committing various acts of misconduct enumerated in the charge sheet. A second show cause notice was issued and after consideration of the reply, the petitioner passed dismissal order dated 13.03.2002 vi