- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 100141 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. PRALHAD B. KULKARNI, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MIG-276, III MAIN, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD., PHIROZ SHAH NAGAR, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, VIKHROLI (E), MUMBAI-400 079. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, GODREJ AGROVET LTD., NO. 497, HTM LAYOUT, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, V.V. NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 032. 3. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, GODREJ AGROVET LTD. (HUBLI UNIT), C/O. AIMS FEEDS PVT. LTD., 57A AND 58A, TARIHAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, TARIHAL, HUBLI-580 026. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KASTURI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVERSING THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2022 DISMISSING THE W.P. NO.106364/2014 (L-TER), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW W.P. NO.106364/2014 (L-TER). CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.22 11:19:58 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, 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 petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 08.11.2022 in W.P.No.106364/2014. 3. There is a delay of 586 days in filing the application for review. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the order sought to be reviewed is passed on 08.11.2022. The petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.100105/2023. Said writ appeal was dismissed vide order dated 26.07.2024 as not pressed, and the petitioner/appellant in the said writ appeal sought leave of the Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file review against the order dated 08.11.2022. In the writ appeal, the Court has granted the liberty to the appellant to avail such remedy as available in law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 5. The prosecution of the writ appeal is cited as one of the reasons for the delay in filing the review petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was bonafide in prosecuting the writ appeal. Thereafter the writ appeal is withdrawn with liberty to file a review petition. The liberty is granted. The delay has to be condoned. It is his further submission that the application for condonation of delay has to be construed liberally to advance the cause of justice and he would further submit that the petitioner has made out valid grounds to seek review of the order dated 08.11.2022. 7. Sri K.Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that there is a delay of 586 days in filing the review petition and merely because the petitioner had filed an appeal against order of the learned Single Judge and later the appeal being withdrawn without notice to the respondents, cannot be cited as ground to condone the delay. It is submitted that the liberty is granted without notice of respondents and the petitioner is required to made out sufficient - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 grounds other than the ground which is referred to above. It is urged that no valid ground is made out to condone the delay. 8. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the order under review is passed on 08.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the writ appeal. The writ appeal was withdrawn before issuing notice to the respondents. It appears that the petitioner had filed a memo before the Division Bench seeking liberty to withdraw the writ appeal and to file a review petition. The liberty was granted without notice to the respondent, as rightly submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. 10. Since the appeal is not heard and decided on merit, there is no question of merger of the order passed by the Court in the writ appeal with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Under these circumstances, technically the review petition is maintainable. Brushing aside technicality, adopting the liberal approach, to condone the delay the Court is of the view - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 that the delay of 586 days in filing the review petition has to be condoned and is accordingly condoned. 12. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the petition is heard on merit. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was terminated from employment on 29.02.2012. It is urged that no enquiry was held before terminating the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. 14. The petitioner’s claim before the Labour Court, Hubballi is rejected on the premise that the petitioner was not a workman. 15. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was working as a salesman at the time of termination and the salesman does not come under the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and accordingly the petition was dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner would bring to the notice of the Court that a year prior to the dismissal, the petitioner who had suffered an accident was subjected to medical test and in the letter dated 15.03.2011, it is noted that the petitioner will be working in stores after producing the fitness certificate. Referring to this letter, the learned counsel would urge that the petitioner was working as a store in charge at the time of termination and this fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and also the Labour Court as there was no issue framed as to whether the petitioner was a workman or not. 17. To substantiate the contention learned counsel for the petitioner would invite the attention of the Court to the memo dated 17.11.2025, and four documents produced along with. Referring to those documents, it is urged that the petitioner has taken the charge of store in charge. Thus, it is urged that the petitioner was working as store in charge at the time of termination. 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents would urge that the scope in review petition is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 limited and no apparent error is brought to the notice of the Court to seek review. 19. The present petition is under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The scope of review petition is limited and review is maintainable provided the order suffers from error on the face of the record. In other words, the error is to be pointed out from the records already available before the Court which passed the order. 20. The documents which are now sought to be produced along with the memo dated 17.11.2025 (without application) were not available for the learned Single Judge for his consideration. 21. Under these circumstances, based on the material on record i.e. the petitioner's statement that he was working as a salesman when he was terminated from the service, the Court has held that petitioner was not a workman when he was terminated from service. 22. The Court does not find any apparent error in the order passed by the learned Judge who has held that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15879 RP No. 100141 of 2024 petitioner was not a workman when he was terminated from service on such and such a date. Accordingly no ground is made out to seek review. 23. However, it is to be noticed that the petitioner’s grievance is not adjudicated on merits as the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the petitioner was not a workman. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to avail such remedy as advised in law. If such remedy is availed the time spent from the date on which the dispute is raised till today is to be excluded in computing the limitation. However, it is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. 24. Hence, the following: ORDER Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 56