- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100183 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: RUDRAPPA FAKIRAPPA TALWAR AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. UNEMPLOYED, R/O. KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KALBHAVI, R/BY ITS PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, GRAM PANCHAYAT, KALBHAVI, TQ. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591101. 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 06/01/2023 MADE IN W.P.NO.108729/2017 (L-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION NO.108729/2017 (L-RES) AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner, aggrieved by an order dated 6.1.2023 passed in WP No.108729/2017 by the learned Single Judge, is in this intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, whereunder the petitioner’s challenge to an order dated 23.11.2016 in Reference No.50/2015 by the Labour Court, Belagavi, is rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund for the appellant and learned counsel Sri. V Shivaraj Hiremath for the respondents No.1 and 3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator in respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat in the year 2007 and in the year 2011, he was abruptly terminated from the service without passing any resolution and without issuing any order of termination. Thereafter, immediately, he raised a dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court under Reference No.50/2015. It was the contention of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 respondents that the petitioner was not an employee of respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat and there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. The Labour Court under award dated 23.11.2016 rejected the reference with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before Zilla Panchayat. Questioning the same, the petitioner was before this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge on considering the rival contentions of the parties, under impugned order dated 6.1.2023 rejected the writ petition. Against which, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel Sri. P.G. Chikkanaragund for the appellant/petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked from 2007 to 2011 without break and therefore, the respondent/Panchayat could not have terminated the petitioner from service without providing an opportunity and without conducting any enquiry. He submits that the termination of the petitioner from service as a Computer Operator is wholly illegal and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and without - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 assigning any reason, rejected the reference of the petitioner. He further submits that the Labour Court has not assigned any proper reasons for rejecting the reference. As the petitioner had worked from 2007 to 2011 continuously, he would be entitled for the relief as prayed. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.V Shivaraj Hiremath for respondents No.1 and 3 submits that the petitioner has not placed on record any document to establish that there was employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. He further submits that the petitioner was appointed through outsource agency as a Computer Operator and he was not an employee of respondent No.2/Gram Panchayat. Further, learned counsel submits that the Gram Panchayat has not terminated the service of the petitioner and if at all there is termination, it should be by outsource agency, who appointed the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, the only point that would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 arise for consideration in this appeal is, whether the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires interference? 7. Answer to the above point would be in the “negative” for the following reasons: The petitioner/appellant claims that he was appointed as a Computer Operator on 15.10.2007 in the respondent/Gram Panchayat. However, the petitioner has not placed on record any material or document to establish his appointment by respondent/Gram Panchayat. When there is no material on record to substantiate the contention of the petitioner that he is an employee of respondent/Gram Panchayat, the petitioner had to place on record appointment letter or any document for having received the salary from respondent/Gram Panchayat. In the absence of any iota of material or document on record, this Court or Labour Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioner was an employee of respondent/Gram Panchayat. When the petitioner has failed to establish his relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent/Gram Panchayat, question of respondents following - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5647-DB WA No. 100183 of 2023 the procedure prescribed for termination or providing an opportunity to the petitioner would not arise. 8. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. We see no merit in the writ appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3