- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14500 WP No. 68305 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 68305 OF 2010 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. JAYASHREE W/O GOVINDA DANDIGAL, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. MADRAS CHAWL, HALEDANDELI, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI. 2. MAHADEVI D/O DONDIBA KAMBLE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. MADRAS CHAWL, HALEDANDELI, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI. 3. RANGAMALAKHAMMA W/O RANGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. MADRAS CHAWL, HALEDANDELI, MARUTI NAGAR, DANDELI. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14500 WP No. 68305 of 2010 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISHVESHWARAYYA MINI TOWERS, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE TERMINATION ORDER DATED 26/08/2005, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER NOTICE NO.NSD/R/18/SBD/AV/2005-2006, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-D; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2007 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN UNNUMBERED CASE AT ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25/08/2008, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONCILIATION OFFICER, DHARWAD DIVISION, HUBLI, IN IDA/SR-1/2008-2009 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14500 WP No. 68305 of 2010 2. Petitioners are assailing the order passed by the Conciliation Officer refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication on the premise that the petitioners being teachers are not the workmen under Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were employed by the Municipality as teachers in tailoring school. The Conciliation Officer refused to refer the dispute on the premise that the petitioners are not workmen. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since the University is an industry, the teachers would also be the workmen and the dispute has to be resolved by the Industrial Tribunal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the Apex Court in A Sundarambal vs Govt of Goa, Daman and Diu1 has held that whether the teacher is a workman or not is a question yet to be resolved and he would further submit that the petitioners have the remedy before the 1 1988(4) SCC 42 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14500 WP No. 68305 of 2010 Educational Appellate Tribunal and if, such a dispute is raised before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, the respondent will not contend that the Educational Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the issue on the premise that the petitioners are the workmen. 5. Submissions are placed on record. 6. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is disposed. (ii) Since the dispute is not yet adjudicated, without averting to the question whether the petitioners are workmen or not, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the Educational Appellate Tribunal. (iii) It is made clear that time spent in prosecuting the present dispute right from the date of moving an application before the Conciliation Officer till date is excluded in computing the limitation, if any. (iv) If the appeal/application is filed before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, same shall be considered in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14500 WP No. 68305 of 2010 accordance with law and shall decide the case as a forum having jurisdiction. (v) This Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. However, before the Educational Appellate Tribunal, the respondent shall not raise a contention that the Educational Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 1