The Commissioner vs the President

The Commissioner vs The President

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jan 05, 2026

~6 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1581515

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/1581515
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: Anant Ramanath Hegde
Decided On: Jan 05, 2026
Case Number: WP/45725/2011

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Commissioner

Respondent

The President

Excerpt

.....respondents no.1 and 2 -5- were working for the project is established and it is also established that the petitioners were prohibited from engaging the contract labourers as such, it is to be deemed that respondents no.1 and 2 were working for the petitioners.9. the court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.10. learned counsel for the petitioners though hasraised a contention that contract labour (regulation and prohibition) act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') exempts certain industries from the application of the said act in case the number of employees at a given point of time, is less than 20, no material is placed on record to hold that the petitioners engaged less than 20 labourers atthe relevant point of time. thus, the said contention is not available.11. as far as the contention that no materials are available on record to hold that respondents no.1 and 2 -6-were employed by the petitioners, it is to be noticed that in the statement of objection, the petitioners have taken a contention that respondents no.1 and 2 were employed under one venkatesh, who is allegedly the labour contractor. it is his further contention that the said venkatesh was entrusted with the project undertaken by the petitioners. this would lead to the conclusion that respondents no.1 and 2 were working for the project undertaken by the petitioners.12. it is not in dispute that at relevant point of time, there was a circular which prohibited the petitionersfrom engaging the labour contractors. that being the position, the labour court has come to the conclusion that respondent nos.1 and 2 were working for the petitioner as the petitioner was not allowed under law to engage the labour contractors.13. this court does not find any error in the logicadopted by the labour court in coming to the conclusion-7- that respondents no.1 and 2 were employed by the petitioners.14. this court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 45725 OF 2011 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, MYSORE.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VANI VILAS WATER WORKERS UNION, YADAVAGARI, MYSORE - 20. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND P2) AND:
1. THE PRESIDENT MYSORE CITY CORPORATION, Digitally VANI VILAS WATER WORKERS UNION, signed by C HONNUR SAB MYSORE. Location:
HIGH COURT 2.    SMT. INDIRA
OF               W/O LATE DEVARAJU M
KARNATAKA        AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT NO. 49, MODEL HOUSE MAHADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 007, KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.D. KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE) -2- THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 07.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NO.5/2007 AT ANNEXURE G AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 07.09.2010 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D No.5 of 2007.

2. The petition is filed by the employer who is aggrieved by the direction for reinstatement of respondents No.1 and 2 with 30% back wages.

3. The Labour Court has denied the consequential benefits and continuity of service. The award to the extent of rejected claim is not questioned by respondents No.1 and 2 and they have accepted the award. -3-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 is no more and his legal representatives are brought on record and as such, there

cannot be any award to reinstate respondent No.2. The Court has noticed that respondent No.2 is no more and his legal representatives are brought on record based on the application filed by the Union.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners taking to the

facts of the case would contend that respondents No.1 and

2 were never employed by the petitioners and in fact, the petitioner No.2 has entrusted a project to an independent

contractor    by     name     Venkatesh        and       at   the     most,
respondents     No.1    and    2     were      working        under      said
Venkatesh.           That being the position, the industrial

dispute could not have been raised against the petitioner on the premise that the petitioners have denied the employment of respondents No. 1 and 2, is the submission. -4-

6. It is his further submission that without there

being any finding on the disputed fact that respondents No.1 and 2 were the employees of the petitioners the impugned award is passed solely relying on the Circular which prohibited the petitioners from engaging the contract labourers. Thus, it is contended that the award is unsustainable and has to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2

would submit that the Labour Court is justified in passing the award as the petitioners in the statement of objection filed before the Labour Court have admitted the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 are working for the project undertaken by the petitioners.

8. It is urged that in the statement of objection,

petitioners have raised the contention that respondents No.1 and 2 were working under one Venkatesh to whom the contract was entrusted by the petitioners and that being the position, the fact that respondents No.1 and 2 -5- were working for the project is established and it is also established that the petitioners were prohibited from engaging the contract labourers as such, it is to be deemed that respondents No.1 and 2 were working for the petitioners.

9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners though has

raised a contention that Contract Labour (Regulation and Prohibition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') exempts certain industries from the application of the said Act in case the number of employees at a given point of time, is less than 20, no material is placed on record to hold that the petitioners engaged less than 20 labourers at

the relevant point of time. Thus, the said contention is not available.

11. As far as the contention that no materials are available on record to hold that respondents No.1 and 2 -6-

were employed by the petitioners, it is to be noticed that in the statement of objection, the petitioners have taken a contention that respondents No.1 and 2 were employed under one Venkatesh, who is allegedly the labour contractor. It is his further contention that the said Venkatesh was entrusted with the project undertaken by the petitioners. This would lead to the conclusion that respondents No.1 and 2 were working for the project undertaken by the petitioners.

12. It is not in dispute that at relevant point of time, there was a Circular which prohibited the petitioners

from engaging the labour contractors. That being the position, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 were working for the petitioner as the petitioner was not allowed under law to engage the labour contractors.

13. This Court does not find any error in the logic

adopted by the Labour Court in coming to the conclusion

-7- that respondents No.1 and 2 were employed by the petitioners.

14. This Court is of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the said award in exercise of the jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the conclusion is logically tenable. However, it is to be

noticed that respondent No.2 is no more and as such, there cannot be any award of reinstatement as far as respondent No.2 is concerned. The award of reinstatement in favour of respondent No.1 is to be upheld.

15. Legal representatives of respondent No.2 are entitled to the monetary benefit flowing from the said

award. While calculating the monetary benefits, it is necessary to treat respondent No.2 was in employment till his death, in case he died before age of superannuation and in case if he has died after the age of superannuation, it is to be deemed that he worked till his superannuation. -8-

16. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. The award shall be complied within two months from today. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2026 Same Parties The Commissioner vs The President Same Judge Anant Ramanath Hegde