- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106634 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, BENGALURU, R/BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE WAREHOUSE IN-CHARGE DISTRICT DRUG WAREHOUSE, DISTRICT HOSPITAL PREMISES, DHARWAD. … PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUM. YALLAMMA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. SHIVAJI AGASAR, R/O. H.NO.44, JAGADESHNAGAR, HEGGERI COLONY, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT. 2. SRI. PAVAN M/S. NAVODAYA SERVICE CENTRE, SECURITY, HUMAN RESOURCE AND HOUSE KEEPING, NO.53, 3RD FLOOR, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO, CONCERNING AND CONNECTED WITH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 9TH MAY 2023, PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, IN REF. NO.1/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE AWARD BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND QUASH THE SAID AWARD IN REF. NO.1/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AND THE PUBLICATION OF THE AWARD BY THE LABOUR Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-H AS ILLEGAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the award dated 09.05.2023 in terms of which the respondents are directed to reinstate the claimants before the Labour Court with 50% backwages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners who are respondents no.1 and 2 before the Labour Court have raised a contention that the petitioners are not the employers of the contesting respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 in this petition was the employer when respondent no.1 left the services and earlier to that the petitioners availed the services of Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. and said Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation deputed 1st respondent to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 the petitioner in terms of the contract entered into between the petitioners and the Karnataka State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd. It is also urged that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and respondent no. 1. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the Labour Court erred in passing the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would urge that the employer and employee relationship is very much established. The identity card is issued by the petitioners. Salary is paid by the petitioners through a third party and the 1st respondent was working under the direction and control of the petitioners, as such, the Labour Court is justified in passing the award for reinstatement. 5. In paragraph No.2 of the claim statement, the 1st respondent/claimant before the Labour Court has made a specific statement that she was appointed as Systems Incharge by the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. It is further noticed that pursuant to the order passed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 Karnataka State Electronics Corporation Ltd., 1st respondent reported to duty before petitioner No.2. 6. It is noticed that the petitioners have not produced any document relating to exemption under the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 (Act, 1970). [ [ 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the petitioners have availed the services through outsourcing, they are exempt from the provisions of the Act, 1970. It is also urged in terms of the agreement between Karnataka State Electronic Development Corporation and the petitioners, the outsourcing which has taken place is lawful and it cannot be alleged that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Act, 1970. 8. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 would urge that alleged outsourcing agreement between the petitioners and the Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation is placed before the Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. Admittedly, alleged agreement between the Karnataka State Electronic Development Corporation and the 1st respondent is not produced before the Labour Court. The implication of the agreement and the provisions of the Act, 1970 have not been considered by the Labour Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that after the service contract with the KEONIKS expired, the petitioners have entered into contract with M/s Navodaya Service Centre for supply of human resources. 12. Petitioner shall furnish the records before the Labour Court for having entered into such agreement with M/s Navodaya Service Centre, and also KEONIKS. 13. Hence the following: ORDER (1) Writ Petition is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 2) Without getting into the merits of the matter, the impugned award dated 09.05.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Hubballi, to consider the following questions: (i) Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 are applicable to the petitioners? If so, whether the petitioners have obtained necessary exemption under the Karnataka Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970? (ii) If the provisions of Karnataka Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 are not applicable to the petitioners, whether the petitioners have established the valid and lawful outsourcing agreement between the petitioners and Karnataka State Electronic Development Corporation? 3) The parties are permitted to lead evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. 4) Thereafter, the Labour Court shall pass appropriate orders. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:18031 WP No. 106634 of 2023 5) The parties are permitted to appear before the Labour Court on 14.01.2026 without any further notice from the Labour Court. 6) Since respondent No.2 is not before this Court, the Labour Court shall issue notice to respondent No.2 in this petition. 7) Registry to send the TCR to the Labour Court forthwith. 8) In view of the disposal of the petition on merits, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration. 9) The amount deposited before the Court shall be disbursed subject to the result of the proceeding before the Labour Court. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36