- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.44408 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER (REGULAR) MANDYA RANGE, MANDYA. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY MS. RASHMI RAO, HCGP) AND: 1. MARIHUCHA S/O SRI KALEGOWDA, AGED: MAJOR DODDAKOPPALU, KASABA, PANDAVAPURA, KALLANAHALLI POST, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 231. 2. THE CHANDIGAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DODDAKOPPALU, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 231, BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURURAJ. R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD ORDER DATED 02.09.2013, IN IID.NO.143/1999 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AT MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 This petition is by the Range Forest Officer, Mandya Range, Mandya and by the State of Karnataka represented by its Chief Secretary. The petitioners have called in question the award dated 02.09.2013 in IID No. 143 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Mysuru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The proceedings in IID No.143 of 1999 is because of an application filed by the first respondent under Section 10[4-A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] for directions for his reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of back wages with consequential benefits. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 2. The first respondent, who admittedly joined service in March 1982, has continued in service until 01.04.1999. The petitioners have contested the first respondent's application on different grounds, including the denial of employer- employee relationship, and asserting that the first respondent was not engaged in an Industry. The Labour Court, in awarding reinstatement with benefits as aforesaid, has opined that the first respondent has established the relationship of employer and employee between himself and the State, that he is employed in an industry and that his termination from service is illegal. 3. Ms. Rashmi Rao, the learned High Court Government Pleader, submits that the petitioner would seek this Court’s interference essentially on the ground of jurisdiction asserting that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the first petitioner and the first - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 respondent. In response, Sri N. Sheshadri, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the question, whether the forest department would be an industry under the ID Act when workmen are engaged in social forestry, is pending reference before a Larger Bench of the Apex Court, but in similar circumstances, and because of the pendency of the Reference, this Court has disposed of multiple writ petitions with direction to the petitioners to satisfy the award subject to the concerned workmen filing an undertaking to reimburse the benefit depending on the outcome in the reference. 4. Sri N. Sheshadri, on the peculiarities of the case, submits: [a] that the first respondent has completed 40 years of service and he is on the verge of retirement, [b] that the first respondent, even if it is ultimately held that the forest - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 department would not be an industry when it is engaged in social forestry, would be entitled for retiral benefits in terms of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, [c] that the petition could be disposed of with direction to the petitioners to let the first respondent to continue in service until the age of 60 years and settle all dues in terms of the 2012 enactment but with liberty to approach for the difference in entitlement based on the outcome in the reference. Sri N. Sheshadri, to support the assertion that this Court has disposed of similar petitions directing the forest department to satisfy the award, places on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 record a copy of a Coordinate Bench's order dated 21.01.2025 in WP No.32119 of 2019. 5. The first respondent has been reinstated and continued in service after the Labour Court's impugned award, and given his own exigencies, he is willing to receive upon attaining the age of superannuation, the minimum that should be paid in terms of the 2012 enactment and the Rules framed, subject to his right to seek for the benefits that he would otherwise be entitled to once the pending reference is answered by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court. This Court does not find this request as unjustified especially when this Court in similar matters has directed implementation of the award on terms. Hence, the following ORDER The writ petition stands disposed of directing the petitioners to permit the first respondent to continue in service until he completes 60 years and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15844 WP No.44408 of 2014 pay current wages as is being done and to pay all the benefits that would be payable in terms of the 2012 enactment and the Rules reserving liberty to the first respondent, subject to the outcome in the Reference as aforesaid, to apply for the payment of other benefits. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13