General Manager vs the Labour Officer (Gadag) and Controlling Authority Under

General Manager vs The Labour Officer (Gadag) and Controlling Authority Under

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Sep 19, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1276590

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1276590
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Suraj Govindaraj
Decided On: Sep 19, 2025
Case Number: WP/106199/2025
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

General Manager

Respondent

The Labour Officer (Gadag) and Controlling Authority Under

Excerpt

.....them accountable remanding the matter with appropriate directions in accordance with law thereby allowing the petitioner fare and proper opportunity of being heard.and/or(c) pass any other order this hon ble court deems fit to pass in -3- the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. this petition, coming on for orders this day,order was made therein as under:oral order(per: the hon'ble mr. justice suraj govindaraj)1. learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatrespondent no.2 is a contractor who has been arraigned as party. since it is a contractor who had engaged a workman, the workman had not arraigned the contractor as party before the authority. accepting the submission, the office objection is overruled.2. learned aga accepts notice for respondent no.1.3. notice to respondent nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.4. the present petition challenges only the interlocutoryorder condoning the delay in filing the claim by theconcerned workmen. it is noted that the petitioner has -4- an alternative and efficacious remedy under subsection (7) of section 7 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the appropriate government against any such order.5. reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate government by filing an appropriate application, the petition stands disposed of.6. the petitioner is granted a period of three weeks to make such an application.7. the appropriate government is directed to considerand pass necessary orders on the said application within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. while doing so, the appropriate government shall also take into consideration the petitioner’s grievance that the contractors, who allegedly possess the relevant documents, have not -5- been made parties to the proceedings, and shall take appropriate steps in that regard.8. it is further clarified that, as the.....

Full Judgment

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106199 OF 2025 (L-PG) BETWEEN: GENERAL MANAGER HARIHAR POLY FIBRES, HARIHAR, KUMARAPATTANAM-581123, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER- LEGAL, MR. VIJAYKUMAR ANGADI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Z.N. HANSI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE LABOUR OFFICER

Digitally signed (GADAG) AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY by SAROJA HANGARAKI UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, Location: High 1972, SITTING ON DEPUTATION AT DC OFFICE, Court of Karnataka, HAVERI, HAVERI ROAD, DEVAGIRI, Dharwad Bench, DIST. HAVERI-581110. Dharwad

2. SHRI SHIVAMURTHAYYA PANCAHAYYA SHANKARIMATH AGE.MAJOR, OCC.NIL, T/O KODIYAL HOSAPETH, TQ.RANEBENNUR, DIST.HAVERI-581123.

3. M/S. SURESH MALPANI AND CO.

INDUSTRY HOUSE, NO.45, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. -2- REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.ANIL MALPAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN

THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER

QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-01-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 AT HAVERI, IN KA AA HA/UPAAKA/CR/-15/ 2016-17 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE -F TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY DISMISSING THE CLAIM OR ANY OTHER RELIEF ORDERED AND AWARDABLE TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 CLAIMANT. B) ISSUE A

WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED. 07-01-2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 LABOUR OFFICER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, AT HAVERI, IN KAA HA/UPAAKA/CR/-15/2016-17.PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - F TO THIS WRIT PETITION, THEREBY ASCERTAINING THE PRESENCE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3 CONTRACTORS IN THE PROCEEDINGS MAKING THEM ACCOUNTABLE REMANDING THE MATTER WITH APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITIONER FARE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD.AND/OR(C) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER THIS HON BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN -3- THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

respondent No.2 is a contractor who has been arraigned as party. Since it is a contractor who had engaged a workman, the workman had not arraigned the contractor as party before the authority. Accepting the submission, the office objection is overruled.

2. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1.

3. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

4. The present petition challenges only the interlocutory

order condoning the delay in filing the claim by the

concerned workmen. It is noted that the petitioner has -4- an alternative and efficacious remedy under Subsection (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which permits an aggrieved person to approach the appropriate Government against any such order.

5. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Government by filing an appropriate application, the petition stands disposed of.

6. The petitioner is granted a period of three weeks to make such an application.

7. The appropriate Government is directed to consider

and pass necessary orders on the said application within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the application. While doing so, the appropriate Government shall also take into consideration the petitioner’s grievance that the contractors, who allegedly possess the relevant documents, have not -5- been made parties to the proceedings, and shall take appropriate steps in that regard.

8. It is further clarified that, as the challenge in the

present petition is only to the interlocutory order

condoning the delay, and since no final liability has been determined or crystallized, there is no requirement at this stage for the petitioner to deposit any amount. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SH CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties General Manager vs The Labour Officer (Gadag) and Controlling... Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Suraj Govindaraj