- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 55141 OF 2013 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. SRI N RAMESH, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.214, 5TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA COLONY, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE-560028. 2. K M MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.6, MICO BADAVANE, IST CROSS, NEAR LAXMI BADAVENE, HONGASANDRA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560068. 3. NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O N PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.60/23, 2ND CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGARA, NEAR GANGAMMA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560050. 4. MAHESH, S/O SRI GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO.65/2, 4TH CROSS, VIDYAPEETHA, OPP. SSM SCHOOL, CHINNAMMANAKERE ACHHKATTA, BANGALORE-560085. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 5. SHANMUGAM, S/O SRI ARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, NO.71,MANJUNATHA COLONY, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085. 6. KRISHNA, S/O SRI BYREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.67, HONGASANDRA, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, BALAJI BADAVANE, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-560068. 7. SMT THILAKAMMA, W/O SRI DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.167, GANGAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, VIDYAPEETHA, BANGALORE-560050. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G S NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S VOGUE FASHIONS, NO.27/3, 3RD CROSS 5TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJNAGARA, BANGALORE-560028. REP. BY ITS OFFICE INCHARGE. 2. MR R V GIRI, S/O S R RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.260, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, BYRAPPA BLOCK, 3RD BLOCK, TYAGARAJNAGARA, BANGALORE-560028. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K R ANAND, ADV FOR R1 V/O/DT: 17.01.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE THIRD ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN REF.13/2011. QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD.3.9.2013 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN REF.13/2011 AT ANNEX-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. 2. Present petition is filed impugning the award dated 03.09.2013 passed by III Additional Labour Court at Bangalore in Ref. No.13/2011. 3. In all, 10 persons made a claim under Section 10(1)(C)(D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming reinstatement to the alleged employment under the first respondent which is admittedly a partnership firm. Second respondent is said to be one of the partners of the said firm. The reference petition is rejected by the Labour Court in terms of the impugned order. Out of 10 persons who sought - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 reference, only 7 are before this Court. Rest of them have not questioned the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the records produced by the petitioners to substantiate their contention that they were working under first respondent firm are not considered and erroneously rejected. The certificates at Annexures-Ex.W1, Ex.W5, Ex.W15, Ex.W21 would establish the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and first respondent. He would contend that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the said application on the premise that the documents are inadmissible in evidence as they are the xerox copies. She would urge that the impugned order has to be set aside and the petitioners are to be reinstated. 5. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent would contend that the relationship of employer and employee is not established. The Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference for want of evidence to establish the contention that the petitioners were the employees of first respondent. The Labour Court has rightly held that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 documents produced are the xerox copies and the same are inadmissible in evidence. 6. In addition, it is also urged that one of the partners of the first respondent firm had issued letters in favour of the petitioners without any authority and that too after exiting from the partnership firm and the said letters do not establish the relationship of employer and employee. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. The following point arises for consideration:- i) Whether the petitioners established that the Labour Court has ignored the material evidence on record and erroneously rejected the petition so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India? 8. This Court has perused the reasons assigned by the Labour Court. Admittedly, in this case, no letter of appointments have been produced by the petitioners. It is also noticed that original salary slip is also not produced. What is produced is the xerox copy of the alleged salary slips. However, at the same time, it is also noticed that the petitioners have produced the letters said to have been - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 issued by one of the partners namely Mr. R.V. Giri who is the second respondent in this petition. The said letter would indicate that the petitioners were employed by first respondent for 13 to 15 years. It is relevant to note that the document at Ex.W27 is the partnership deed which reconstituted, the structure of the partnership firm. It would reveal that Mr. R.V. Giri is exited from the partnership firm after accepting the compensation. The firm is reconstituted in 2009. The date would also indicate that the partner will have no claim from 26.09.2009. It is noticed that said Mr. R.V. Giri is examined as one of the witnesses and he has been cross examined by the partnership firm. Since it is brought in evidence that Mr. R.V. Giri has exited from the partnership firm. It is noticed from the cross examination that the petitioners have admitted in the cross examination that the letters which they rely to establish their employment under the first respondent have been issued by the exited partner Mr. R.V. Giri after his exit. 9. It is also relevant to note that no documents are produced to show that Mr. R.V. Giri has authority to issue - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2122 WP No. 55141 of 2013 such a letter on behalf of the partnership firm. The Labour Court has also noticed in para 16 of the impugned order that the petitioners in the cross examination have not expressed their willingness to work under first respondent and they have been working elsewhere. 10. On considering all these materials, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are unable to establish the relationship of employer and employee and the petitioners are unable to establish that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is fit for interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56