- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3479 WP No. 7106 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7106 OF 2020 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. ANASUYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O SRI. KALAPPA, C/O. MYSURU DISTRICT LABOURS ASSOCIATION, NO.627, NALA STREET, K R MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI V S NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL AND PRESIDENT, MAHARANI'S ARTS COLLEGE, JLB ROAD, MYSURU-570005. 3. WARDEN, MAHARANI'S ARTS COLLEGE OF WOMEN COLLEGE, METROPOLE CIRCLE, MYSURU-570005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT MYSURU PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-C. QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE AWARD DTD.28.3.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT MYSURU IN IID NO.12/2017 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3479 WP No. 7106 of 2020 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C BY WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS DENIED BACK WAGES TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED SINCE THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER The workman/petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 28.03.2018 in I.I.D.No.12/2017 on the file of the Labour Court at Mysuru. The petitioner is assailing part of the said award which declined backwages after holding that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement. 2. The facts noticed from the petition can be summarised as under: - The petitioner claimed that she was working as an Assistant Cook in the hostel of 3rd respondent and she was denied employment with effect from 04.02.2017, as such, she raised an industrial dispute. The respondent contested the petitioner's claim and denied the relationship of employer and employee. The Labour Court after considering the materials on record has concluded that the relationship of employer and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3479 WP No. 7106 of 2020 employee is established. Thus, also concluded that denial of work w.e.f.04.02.2017 is erroneous. Accordingly, the Labour Court passed an order for reinstatement. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner is not entitled to backwages from 04.02.2017 till the date of reinstatement by applying the principle of "no work no wage". 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the finding of the Labour Court denying backwages is unsustainable. For no fault of the petitioner, the respondent has denied employment; there was no allegation of misconduct and no enquiry was conducted. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that admittedly with effect from 04.02.2017, the petitioner did not work. Thus, she is not entitled for backwages. The petitioner was not getting any salary from the Government and the finding of the Labour Court is that she was working as an Assistant Cook and the remuneration was paid from the fees paid by the students. This being the position, the fees paid by the students was used to pay the remuneration for the cook who worked from - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3479 WP No. 7106 of 2020 04.02.2017 till the petitioner's reinstatement, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages. 5. It is also urged that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner has not made a claim that she was unemployed w.e.f.04.02.2017. In this background, there is no scope for any interference in the award passed by Labour Court is the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. At this juncture, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Cook in the hostel. It is also not in dispute that the wage paid to the petitioner was from the fees paid by the students and the petitioner was not receiving any salary from the Government. It is also forthcoming that the petitioner has made any claim that she was not working elsewhere during the period in which the petitioner was not allowed to work. By taking these aspects into consideration, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3479 WP No. 7106 of 2020 is not entitled to backwages. After considering the reasons assigned by the Labour Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5