- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.68566 OF 2011 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI RAVIKUMAR S/O. GURUBASAPPA GEDDALAMARI AGE. 28 YEARS OCC. NIL, R/O. C/O. G.E. GEDDALMANI, JOSHI GALLI, AT AND POST: GULEDAGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, (ELE) O & M CIRCLE, HESCOM, NEHRU NAGAR, BELGAUM-590 016. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) O & M DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, AT & POST: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGUAM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI IN APPLICATION NO.8/2010 DATED 31.05.2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.29 11:19:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi in Application No.8/2010, dismissing the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘Act of 1947’). 2. The application is dismissed on the premise that petitioner secured the employment by practicing fraud i.e., by not disclosing the physical disability which was prior to the appointment order. The facts would reveal that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Lineman on 11.10.2007 and he was removed from employment on 31.07.2009. Out of the several conditions imposed before issuing the appointment order, two conditions are relevant for adjudication of the case; (i) Condition No.3 mandates that the petitioner should get the physical - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 fitness certificate from the Government Hospital. (ii) Condition No.7 mandates that the petitioner within 6 months from the date of appointment has to get the certificate issued by Gazetted Officer or Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly. 3. The petitioner was removed from employment on 31.07.2009, on the premise that he did not possess the requisite fitness when he secured the appointment and he suppressed the fact that he has undergone surgery before the appointment. The order of termination was also questioned by the petitioner and the claim petition was rejected. 4. The award is questioned before this Court by the workman. This Court has also rejected the writ petition holding that the petitioner has suppressed about his medical fitness while securing the appointment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 5. The petitioner claims that from the date of appointment i.e., on 11.10.2007 till the date of termination on 31.07.2009, the petitioner worked for the employer and employer had not paid the salary. Hence, petitioner filed an application under Section 33C(2) seeking recovery of the salary for the said period. The application is opposed by the respondent. The Labour Court rejected the application on the premise that the petitioner secured employment by practicing fraud, as such, he is not eligible to claim the salary for the said period i.e., 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fact that the petitioner had worked from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009 is very much apparent given the fact that the respondent-employer has not issued any notice to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is not doing any work in the said period i.e., from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 7. It is his further submission that the petitioner was not paid salary and this fact is admitted in the cross- examination; and the fact that petitioner requested for payment of salary is also admitted in the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the respondent. Thus, he would urge that merely because the employment was secured by suppressing the fact, it cannot be said that the petitioner should not be paid wages for the period during which he has worked for the respondent. It is submitted that having extracted the work from the petitioner, the respondent is liable to pay the wages and same should not have been denied. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Establishment would contend that, the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the application, as the petitioner secured employment by practicing fraud. The petitioner was unfit to be appointed as an Assistant Lineman and he produced a fake medical certificate and thereafter, he did not discharge any work and he has been rightly removed on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 31.07.2009. As the order of removal having been accepted as valid, the Labour Court is justified in dismissing the application filed under Section 33C(2) of the Act of 1947. 9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 10. From the impugned order, it is evident that the salary is not paid to the petitioner from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009. It is to be noticed that the respondent has not initiated any action against the petitioner on the premise that from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009 he has not worked in the respondent-establishment on account of his disability. No notice is issued in this regard. No enquiry was held in this regard. 11. It is the case of the respondent-establishment that somewhere in the year 2009, it came to know that the petitioner is physically not fit. This itself would indicate that the petitioner was working from 11.10.2007 till he was removed from employment i.e., on 31.07.2009. Under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 these circumstances, one can conclude that the respondent has extracted the work from the petitioner. 12. The question is ‘whether the respondent is liable or not liable to pay wages?’. 13. Though it is true that the petitioner has secured the employment by suppressing the fact that he has undergone surgery, the fact that the petitioner has worked for the respondent-establishment for almost 2 years from the date of appointment till the date of termination can be presumed as it is not the case of the respondent that on account of disability, the petitioner did not work for the said period. 14. If that is the case, there would have been a memo or some notice or some action against the petitioner for not having worked. The action is initiated on the premise that he has produced the fake fitness certificate. If at all the petitioner was not fit enough to work, the respondent ought to have taken action immediately, which is not done. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 15. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the wages for the period from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009. 16. Apart from that, more importantly, the respondent has not stated and established that the petitioner has not worked from 11.10.2007 to 31.07.2009. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to wages for the aforementioned period. 17. The Labour Court has not assessed the wages payable to the petitioner and it has come to the conclusion that petitioner is not entitled to wages because of his conduct. 18. It is also noticed that the Labour Court has also passed an order stating that there is no direction to pay the wages. 19. It is indeed true that there is no settlement or award in favour of the petitioner. However, the initial - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 appointment order is not in dispute. The appointment order would also reveal the salary payable to the workman as such, the claim is capable of computation and petition under Section 33C(2) Act of 1947. In such situation application is maintainable. However, the Labour Court has not ascertained the amount payable to the petitioner. There is no adjudication on the amount payable as such, the matter requires reconsideration by the Labour Court. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that Ex.A.1 dated 12.10.2007 is the joining report, Ex.A.3 dated 27.10.2007 is the document evidencing the training undergone by the petitioner. 21. The respondent has not produced acceptable materials to hold that the petitioner did not work from the date of appointment till the date of termination. 22. This Court has noticed that the Labour Court has not adjudicated the service benefits payable to the petitioner. In such a situation, the matter requires - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 adjudication by the Labour Court as to the actual amount payable to the petitioner. 23. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner does not claim any increments post joining and the petitioner would be satisfied with the amount of salary payable as specified in the letter of appointment. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not claim any interest on the delayed payment in case the amount specified in the appointment letter is paid for the period the petitioner has worked. 24. The said submission is placed on record. 25. In view of the submissions made above, the Court is of the view that there is no need to refer the party to the Labour Court for adjudication of the amount payable. Hence the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed-in-part. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16066 WP No. 68566 of 2011 ii. The respondent shall pay the wages from the date of joining till the date of termination. iii. The wages payable shall be paid calculated as specified in the appointment letter dated 11.10.2007 marked at Ex.W.1. iv. The amount payable shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which the respondent is liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount due from the date of Section 33 petition till the date of payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PARA 1 TO 18-AM. CLK/BRN CT:VP LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4