- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2402 WP No. 17591 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 17591 OF 2013 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, HUNSUR DIVISION, HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT. 3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER PIRIYAPATNA RANGE, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK. ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP) AND: 1. SRI BELLANAIKA, S/O LATE BASAVANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, YADAVANAHALLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJNAGAR DISTRICT. 2. SRI MAHADEVASHETTY, S/O LATE KEMPASHETTY, DEAD BY LR'S 2a. SMT MAHADEVAMMA, W/O SRI LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2402 WP No. 17591 of 2013 AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2b. SMT PARVATHI, D/O SRI LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 2c. MADHESH, S/O SRI LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 2d. GEETHA, D/O SRI LATE MAHADEVASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. [2a to 2d ARE RESIDENT OF SOMAHALLY, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT] (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DATED: 22.02.2024) 3. SRI GANESH, S/O LATE GOPAL KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RAGHAVAPURA, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K GOVINDRAJ, ADV FOR R1, R3 AND R2(b) TO R2(d)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT AT MYSORE IN NO.APPLICATION NO.11/11. QUASH THE ORDER DT.5.11.12, PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, AT MYSORE IN APPLICATION NO.11/11 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANN-A IN THE WP. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2402 WP No. 17591 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is assailing the order dated 05.11.2012 in Application No.11/2011 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru. In terms of the said order, the application filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is allowed with a direction to pay wages to the respondents with effect from 01.04.2009 to 28.02.2011 @ Rs.122.78/- per day along with variable Dearness Allowance @ Rs.1,000/- per month. 3. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners being the State does not fall under the definition of the 'Industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. Thus, it is the submission that the impugned order has to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2402 WP No. 17591 of 2013 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit whether the Forest Department which has undertaken the work of Social Forestry is coming under the definition of Industry as it is not carrying out the sovereign function. It is his submission that respondents No.1 and 2 were working in a project falling under the Social Forestry Scheme and he would also submit that the question whether such employees working under Social Forestry Scheme would come under the definition of 'Workmen' under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a question, which is referred to Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the matter is still pending. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners does not dispute the submission that the question involved is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. Since the question raised in the present petition is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should satisfy the direction contained in the impugned order subject to the respondents giving an undertaking to the petitioners to reimburse the entire amount, in case the Hon'ble Apex Court takes a view that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2402 WP No. 17591 of 2013 dispute raised in the present petition is not within the perview of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. 7. In case such an undertaking is given by the respondents, the petitioners shall release the said amount within two months from the date of said undertaking. Since the only contention is relating to the jurisdiction, this Court does not find any other reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as aforesaid. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP