Action(s) taken or orders passed

Mandar Vasmatkar Company Secretary & Chief - Compliance mandar.vasmatkar@timken.com 22 June, 2026 The National Stock Exchange of India Limited Exchange Plaza, Plot No. C/1, NSE Symbol - TIMKEN G-Block, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051. BSE Limited Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Scrip Code- 522113 Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Dear Sir/Madam, SUB: ORDER PASSED BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Pursuant to Regulation 30 of Securities and Exchange Board of India (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, we hereby inform about an Order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of Antifriction Bearings Corporation Limited (amalgamated with Timken India Limited) V/s Anil Ambalal Modi, details of which are given below: Name of the Authority passing order High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Details of the violation(s)/contravention(s) Mr. Modi was terminated from employment alleged to be committed of Antifriction Bearings Corporation Limited in the year 1995. Since conciliation between parties could not be arrived at then, dispute was referred to the Labour Court. Labour Court in 2005 decided that termination was illegal and awarded back wages to the extent of 65% and ordered to reinstate Mr. Modi in employment. Appeal was filed against aforesaid Labour Court’s Order. Nature and details of the action(s) taken, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at initiated or order(s) passed Ahmedabad has upheld Labour Court’s Order. Further, Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad also directed to pay regular wages to Mr. Modi from 2005 till the Registered office: Timken India Limited 39-42, Electronic City, Phase II, Hosur Road, Bengaluru 560 100. Tel: +91(80) 41362000, Fax: +91(80) 41362010, Website: www.timken.com/en-in/ CIN:L29130KA1996PLC048230 date he attained the age of superannuation. Date of receipt of direction or order /demand 22 June, 2026 notice Impact on financial, operation or other The Company is in process determining activities of the Company, quantifiable in financial impact which will take some time. monetary terms to the extent possible The Company is likely to file appeal against present Order. You are requested to take note of the above. Yours faithfully, For TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED Mandar Vasmatkar Company Secretary & Chief - Compliance C/LPA/110/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026 slN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD A/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 110 of 2016 A/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/7072/2005 With A/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 338 of 2016 A/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14818 of 2005 ANTI FRICTION BEARINGS CORPN. LTD. Versus MODI ANIL AMBALAL & ANR. Appearance: MR VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MS MANSURl(1033) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Date : 17/06/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) 1. Both the management as well as the workman are in appeal. 2. Admittedly, on 22.11.1995, the service of the workman was terminated by the management. Admittedly this termination was not preceded by any inquiry. 3. The workman, being aggrieved with the termination, initially sought for conciliation, but since the same was not fruitful, the Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Page 1 of 7 C/LPA/110/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026 4. Before the Labour Court, the management sought to substantiate the termination by adducing evidence in support of the termination. The management principally contended that the workman had instigated the other workers to undertake a go-slow and this had resulted in a drastic fall of production for which the management was justified in terminating the services of the workman. The Labour Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the management, has come to the conclusion that the termination was not justified and was not lawful. 5. The Labour Court has recorded a finding of fact that out of the four witnesses who were examined by the management, three were the managerial staff, while one- the remaining witness was a Timekeeper. It has found that all these four witnesses have basically stated that the workman had instigated the other workers, but their evidence did not indicate in what manner the workman had instigated them. 6. In fact, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have noticed that the assertion of the witnesses was only to the effect that the workmen were sitting in the tent, which had been erected outside the factory premises, and slogans were being shouted during the strike. 7. It may be pertinent to state here that the workman was only an Account Clerk and there must, therefore, be clear and direct evidence indicating the manner in which an Account Clerk could instigate the workers on the factory floor. The Labour Court, in our view, has rightly come to the conclusion Page 2 of 7 C/LPA/110/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026 that there was no evidence to justify the assertion that the workman had instigated the other workers to go on a go-slow. 8. The learned Single Judge has examined the entire evidence that was adduced and has affirmed the finding recorded by the Labour Court. 9. In our view, since both the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge have clearly come to the conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence to substantiate the assertion that the workman had instigated the other workers to go on a go slow, the award of reinstatement granted by the Labour Court cannot be found fault with. 10. The Labour Court has also taken into consideration that the termination was illegal. It has observed that as a matter of fact, several employees were dismissed from service on 22/23.11.1995. It has also taken note of the fact that there was a settlement arrived at in the writ petition that had been filed before this Court and all of them were taken back. Though the Labour Court has not accepted the say of the workman that he was also entitled for the benefit of this settlement since there was a clear assertion in the memorandum settlement that all employees who were dismissed on 22/23.11.1995 will be taken back to duty, the fact remains that the management had terminated a group of employees, obviously, because of the strike / go-slow. If the management had entered into a settlement in respect of 12 workers and had reinstated them and taken into consideration that they had also been terminated without holding any Page 3 of 7 C/LPA/110/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026 inquiry, it becomes rather obvious that the Labour Court was right in awarding back wages. 11. The Labour Court has only granted 65% back wages. This grant of 65% back wages is because the evidence adduced and material on record indicated that the workman1s father owned a shop and it was admitted by the workman that his father had not engaged any person to assist him in running the shop and the shop was the only source of income for the family. The Labour Court has, therefore, come to the conclusion that the workman would have obviously worked along with his father and was at least gainfully employed to a certain extent and therefore, grant of 100% back wages was incorrect and it has proceeded to grant back wages at the rate of 65%. 12. It must be stated here that merely because the father of the workman was running a shop, it cannot be assumed that the workman by assisting his father was earning sufficient amount of money to maintain the family. 13. The fact that he asserted and the Labour Court believed this assertion that the income of the shop was the only source of livelihood would clearly indicate that the income of the family was not in any way increased significantly because of the appellant's assistance to his father. 14. Be that as it may, when the Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that the termination of the workman without holding any inquiry on the [Showing first 8,000 characters — download PDF for full document]