- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 30794 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: RBANMS EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES, A REGISTERED TRUST, WITH ITS OFFICE AT NO. 24, GANGADHARA CHETTY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 042, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. A.A. SANJEEV NARRAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAWAN SHYAM, ADVOCATE AND SRI. DHEERAJ S.J, ADVOCATE) AND: A.G. PRABHAKAR, S/O LATE A.S. GOVINDARAJ, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.18, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 046. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GAGAN GANAPATHY M.B, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN REF. NO. 21 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE II ADDL. LABOUR COURT, AT BENGALURU AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-Management assailing the order dated 20.08.2024 on I.A.No.3 in REF.No.21/2023 passed by II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, rejecting the said application. 2. I.A.No.3 was filed on the premise that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. Respondent-employee objected to the said application and contended that the employee being a non-teaching staff in an Educational Institution has an option of choosing a forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') or the forum under the Karnataka Education Act, 1983 (for short 'Act of 1983'). 3. The petitioner-Management is before this Court aggrieved by the aforementioned order. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondent-employee was a non-teaching staff in the petitioner institution, which is running Educational Institutions. Alleging misconduct, the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 respondent was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the penalty of dismissal, the respondent raised the industrial dispute. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Act of 1983 is a complete Code and under Section 96 of the said Act, a Tribunal is constituted to adjudicate the dispute between the management and employees of the Educational Institution and constitution of the Tribunal under Section 96 of the Act of 1983, excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947. 6. It is urged that the Act of 1983 was enacted to provide a forum for all the employees of the Educational Institutions and since the Tribunal under the Act of 1983 is competent to adjudicate all disputes including the dispute relating to dismissal from service, the Labour Court could not have entertained the dispute as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is impliedly ousted. 7. Learned counsel also referred to the definition of "employee" under Section 2(15) of the Act of 1983, to contend that the said definition covers both teaching as well as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 non-teaching staff. Reference is also made to Section 2(34) of the Act of 1983 to contend that the society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 is also covered under the Act of 1983. 8. In addition to that, the reference is made to Section 2(A) of the Act of 1947 and also to Section 25J of the said Act, to contend that the employee, who has raised a dispute invoking Section 2(A) has to invoke the jurisdiction of the forum under any other enactment, which are recognized under Section 25J of the Act of 1947. 9. Elaborating on the said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that Section 25J of the Act of 1947 recognizes any other law applicable to the person, who is dismissed from service and said law is to be followed while adjudicating the dispute between the employee, who was dismissed from the service. The provisions of the Act of 1947 and the procedure contemplated therein have to be applied only in case of retrenchment of an employee in an Educational Institution as the said aspect is covered under Section 25J of the Act of 1947. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee would contend that Section 96 of Act of 1983 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute. It is his further submission that the respondent being a non-teacher and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.7487/2016 has concluded that the non-teacher in an Educational Institutions in case dismissed from service, has an option of raising a industrial dispute under the Act of 1947 or to prefer an appeal under Section 96 of the Act of 1983. 11. It is also his further submission that before the Act of 1983, the teachers employed in the Educational Institutions did not have specified forum to raise the dispute relating to their grievance and the Act of 1983 was enacted to provide a forum other than a Civil Court and to not to take away the forum available under the Act of 1947. To substantiate his contention, he would refer to Section 96(5) of the Act of 1983, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Thus, it is urged that the Labour Court is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 12. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 13. As already noticed, there is no dispute that the respondent was working as a non-teaching staff under the petitioner society, which is running Educational Institutions. On account of alleged misconduct, he is removed from the service after holding an enquiry. Thus, the respondent has raised a dispute invoking Section 2(A) of the Act of 1947. The Act of 1983 provides for a mechanism for redressal of grievance of the persons governed by the Act of 1983. In case of dismissal from service, employees of the Educational Institutions are enabled to file an appeal before the Educational Tribunal under Section 96 of the Act of 1983. 14. It is relevant to note that Section 96 of the Act of 1983, which deals with the constitution of the Tribunal for adjudicating the disputes of employees governed by the provisions of the Act of 1983, excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Court in respect of matters over which the Tribunal exercises any power under the Act of 1983. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 Section 96(5) of the Act of 1983 reads as under : "96(5) :- No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of matters over which the Tribunal exercises any power under this Act." 15. Two things can be noticed from the aforementioned provisions. In the first instance, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is specifically ousted in respect of the matters over which the Tribunal exercises the jurisdiction. At the same time, the provision is silent as to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Act of 1947. The legislature, which passed the Act of 1983 was conscious of the forum that was available under the Act of 1947, wherein a workman was enabled to raise an industrial dispute under the Act of 1947. However, the legislature has chosen to exclude only the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and not chosen to exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947. 16. Thus, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute in case of dismissal from service of a non-teaching employee in an Educational Institutions is not ousted under Section 96 of the Act of 1983. There is no other - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 provision in the Act of 1983, which specifically or impliedly ousts the jurisdiction of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Act of 1947. 17. Coming to the contention with reference to Section 2A(2) and Section 25J of the Act of 1947, it is to be noticed that Section 2A(2), which was introduced by way of an amendment in the year 2010, enables the employee to directly approach the Labour Court in case of dismissal, termination, discharge and retrenchment. Section 25J of Act of 1947 reads as under: "25J. Effect of laws inconsistent with this Chapter.- (1)The provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law [including standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946): [Provided that where under the provisions of any other Act or rules, orders or notifications issued thereunder or under any standing orders or under any award, contract of service or otherwise, a workman is entitled to benefits in respect of any matter which are more favourable to him than those to which he would be entitled under this Act, the workman shall continue to be entitled to the more favourable benefits in respect of that matter, notwithstanding that he receives benefits in respect of other matters under this Act.] - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 (2)For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Chapter shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State insofar as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes, but the rights and liabilities of employers and workmen insofar as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. 18. Sub Section (2) of Section 25J of Act of 1947, which is in the nature of clarification declares that nothing in chapter of V-A shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any other law for the time being in force in any State insofar as that law provides for settlement of industrial disputes and it further states that the rights and liabilities of the employers and workmen insofar as lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of chapter V-A. 19. It is relevant to notice that Section 25J in chapter V-A came into effect in the year 1953. At the outset, it is to be noticed that, it has recognized the prevailing law in 1953 when it comes to dismissal and termination. Insofar as lay-off and retrenchment is concerned, Sub Section (2) of Section 25J - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21868 WP No. 30794 of 2024 provides that the said question shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of chapter V-A. 20. Sub Section (2) of Section 25J has only recognized any other law that was prevailing in force in the year 1953 or prior to that, in the matters concerning dismissal, termination and discharge. The Act of 1983 came into force in the year 1995. After the Act of 1983 coming into force, there is no amendment to Section 25J. Thus, by necessary application one has to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947 is not ousted by Act of 1983 as Section 25J of Act of 1947 does not take into account the law coming into force after introduction of Section 25J in Act of 1947. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK