- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. N BHUVANESHWARI W/O KANTHARAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.210, 15 CROSS, 6TH MAIN WILSON GARDEN. BANGALORE -560030 NO.87 SUNKAL FARM, BTS MAIN ROAD 1ST A MAIN, OPP WILSON VINTAGE APARTMENT WILSON GARDEN-560027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD (SOHAM GROUP OF COMPANIES) NO.137, HMG AMBASSADOR BUILDING, 7TH FLOOR, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE -560025 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PRESENT ADDRESS M/S AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD. NO.37, MANDOTH RMJ TOWERS 1ST FLOOR, 7TH CROSS Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 VASANTHANGAR BANGALORE-560052 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No-49982/2018 AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.49982/2018 c/w W.P.No.6531/2019 filed by the appellant as well as the respondent impugning the award of the learned Labour Court dated 08.03.2018 in Reference No.08/2015. The said Industrial dispute came to be referred to the Labour Court by the Government. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 2. The Labour Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence led by the parties, framed the following issues: "a. Whether the applicant-Smt.Bhuvaneshwari would prove that she is a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act? b. In the event of proving so, whether the management of M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited is justified in terminating her from service w.e.f.29.06.2013? c. If not, to what the relief the 'workman' is entitled to?" 3. The Labour Court had held that the appellant/workman was 'a workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and allowed the reference in part directing the Management to pay a sum Rs.5,00,000/- to the appellant/workman as a relief of compensation in lieu of the reinstatement, continuity of service, full back wages and all other consequential benefits etc. The appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 being aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court filed in W.P.No.49982/2015 and W.P.No.6531/19 came to be filed by the Management. 4. The learned Single Judge in a well considered judgment has considered the nature of the job and salary drawn by the appellant and the provisions in Section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant/workman was not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. Thus, the Labour Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide the reference inasmuch as the reference would be lying in respect of a dispute between a workman and management as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. 5. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the provisions of sub section (iii) and (iv) of Section 2(s) of the Act to give a finding that persons employed in an administrative or supervision capacity drawing emoluments of more than Rs.10,000/- per month would not be included in the definition of a workman. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 6. For the said conclusion, the learned Single Judge has extracted the job profile and salary drawn by the appellant at Paragraph-14, which read as under: "14. The applicant was offered employment with the designation “Executive Secretary” and the nature of work of the respondent, as could be gathered from the appointment letter, resume made available by the applicant to the post of “Executive Secretary," is that: i. Assisting the Chairman, Managing Director and Director in the day-to-day work; ii. Taking care of their travels (Domestic and International), renewal of Passports, processing of VISA / Tickets, accommodation and vehicle arrangements; iii. Ensuring that all the bills from the travels are received, checked and forwarded to the Accounts Department for payment; iv. To see that all the meetings and appointments of the schedule of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Directors are updated; v. As per the appointment letter, the performance of the duties to be carried out by the applicant was to be in compliance with the established policies and procedures, endeavoring to her best ability to protect and promote the interests of the company; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42854-DB WA No. 911 of 2024 vi. The salary of the applicant was fixed at Rs.20,000/- per month;" 7. The job profile of the appellant/workman would clearly demonstrate that she was working as an Executive Secretary and she was performing managerial and supervisory work and was not a workman. We may say that the learned Single Judge has correctly decided the issue against the appellant. Therefore, we find no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. SD/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2