- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2013 (L-TER) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S RADIALL PROTECTION PVT LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DRIECTOR NO.25, D II PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BANGALORE-560058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. DHANANJAYA., ADVOCATE) AND: H S PRABHU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A C/O H NAGARAJU CHANDRANA NILAYA NO.710, GANESH SAW MILL ROAD NEAR NELAMAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE T DAASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560057. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.V.P REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAGHUPATHI M.J., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNX-J BEING THE AWARD PASSED BY I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.16/2007 DATED 12.10.2012. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner [an employer] is aggrieved by the award dated 12.10.2012 in ID No.16/2007 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The Labour Court, by the impugned award, has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. This Court, on 12.02.2013, has granted interim order staying the directions to pay back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits observing that reinstatement shall be subject - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 to further orders of this Court. However, it is now stated that the respondent has not been reinstated, but he is paid allowance under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] presently at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month. 2. The respondent has applied under Section 10(4-A) read with Section 2A of the ID Act alleging that he has been refused work on 23.02.2007 and that he entered the petitioner's service as an operator in 2004 and was drawing a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The labour Court has considered the respondent's application on examining questions [a] whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondent, [b] whether the petitioner has illegally refused employment and [c] whether the respondent is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages, continuity of service and other benefits. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 3. The Labour Court has answered each of these questions in the affirmative. The petitioner's defence, as against the respondent's case that he entered service as an operator in the year 2004 and that with effect from 23/24.02.2007 he has been refused employment, is that it has engaged the services of M/s SAS Enterprises to provide security services and that this agency has employed the respondent and deployed him at its premises to work as a Casual employee. The respondent has examined himself as WW.1 and the petitioner has examined three witnesses as MWs.1 to 3. 4. The respondent has marked the ESI Annual Statements for the years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, his ESI ID card and the declarations filed with the ESI authorities. On behalf of the petitioner, the correspondence dated 14.08.2009 and the signature by a representative of M/s SAS Enterprises and such other details are marked as exhibits. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 Labour Court, on appreciation of this evidence, has found that the respondent was in employment with the petitioner and this is established by the ocular evidence as also the documentary evidence. The Tribunal's reasoning reads as under: 15. The Ex.W.5 is the declaration form submitted to ESI. The page No.2 of the document would clearly reveal the name of the employer is shown as the second party and the employee is shown as the first party. The Ex.M.4 also contains the ESI and PF report, and these are the part and parcel of Ex.W.4. he perusal of the same would reveal that at page 83 at Sl.No.107 the name of the first party is shown. Like wise at page 60 at Sl.No.102 the name of the first party is shown. Likewise at page 130 the name of the first party is shown at Sl.No.75. When these documents produced by the first party are taken into consideration and they pertain to the second party unless the first party was a workman of the second party, then there was no need for the second party to pay the contributions deducted in the name of the first party instead of they making payment to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 service contractor M/s. Sas Enterprises who in turn would have paid the contributions. 16. The cross examination of the MW.1 would show that the first party was working in their Plating Department as a casual helper. It therefore shows that the first party was working on the production side. The casual helper engaged by the service contractor would not have been assigned the job of production of materials. Hence the nature of the job which the first party was carrying on with the second party also shows that the first party infact was employed by the second party and not be M/s. Sas Enterprises. At page 5 of the cross examination, the witness has admitted the ESI code and PF code numbers, which are evident in the documents produced by the first party. The MW.1 at para 1 of the cross-examination states that the first party is a contract employee and this is evident from the letter at Ex.M.1." 5. Though the learned counsels for the parties are heard in elaborate, this Court's attention is not invited to any material to conclude that the Labour Court's observations, as aforesaid, is either - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15307 WP No. 3999 of 2013 contrary to the evidence on record or not relevant to the controversy. If the Labour Court's findings are based on evidence and cannot be taken exception on any of the two grounds as aforesaid or as being opposed to settled law, this Court would not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition stands rejected. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV