- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 66156 OF 2011 (L-PW) BETWEEN: 1. THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER AND DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SOCIAL FORESTRY DIVISION, BELGAUM. 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, REPRESENTING ZILLA PANCHAYATH, BELGAUM. 3. THE DEPUTY FOREST OFFICER, SOCIAL FORESTRY DEPARTMENT, ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SANGAPPA MALLAPPA MULIMANI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DAILY WAGER, OFFICE ASSISTANT RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 2. SRI. BHIMAPPA Y. NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: VANNUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 3. SRI. MALLAPPA Y. MUTTENNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: GANAMANAL, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 4. SRI. DEMANNA M. MUTTENNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: GUDIKATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 5. SRI. MADIVALAPPA R. TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: BACHCHANAKERI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 6. SRI. RAYAPPA L. TALAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: MOHARE, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 7. SRI. NAGAPPA R. BANNUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: HANABARATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 8. SRI. BASAYYA C. PATTIHAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: KHODANPUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 9. SRI. YALLAPPA L. BHANGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DAILY WAGE WATCHMAN, R/O: KHODANPUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 10. SRI. NILAPPA V. TORANGATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: J K KOPPA, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 11. SRI. SHIVAPPA N. TALLUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: NAGANUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 12. SRI. SIKANDAR N.DALAWAI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: AMBADAGATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 13. SRI. JIBRIAL M.NADAF, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: BUDARAKATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 14. SRI. RUDRAPPA B.HITTALAGADDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: VAKKUND, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 15. SRI. CHANDRAPPA N.HITTALAGADDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: VAKKUND, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 16. SRI. MADIWALAPPA F. SHAHAPUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: SANGOLLI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 17. SRI. SHEDEPPA Y. JAGADAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: HANABARATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 18. SRI. ISMAIL B. SIDDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: BAILAHONGAL, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 19. SRI.M MAKTUMSAB RAJESAB KALLUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: YAKKUNDI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 20. SRI. YALLAPPA GANGAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 21. SRI. MARUTI ADIVEPPA GORAVANKOPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 22. SRI. CHANNAPPA HONNAPPA MABANUR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 23. SRI. FAKIRAPPA NINGAPPA JUMETRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 24. SRI. SOMALING KENCHAPPA GUNDAPPANVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 25. SRI. BASANAGOUDA DYAMANGOUDA PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 26. SRI. HANAMANT APPANNA GUNDAPPANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 27. SRI. FAKIRAPPA TAMMANNA SUNKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 28. SRI. HUSENSAB MAKTUMSAB HIROOR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 29. SRI. IRAPPA SOMAPPA ITNAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DAILY WAGER OFFICE, ASST. RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 30. SRI. BASAPPA LAKKAPPA ARABHAVI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 31. SRI. BALARAJ M. ULLAGADDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: GUDIKKATI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, BAILHONGAL. 32. SRI. MAHADEV N. KEMMANAKOL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 33. SRI. PARVATAGOUDA B. CHOUBARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, SAUNDATTI. 34. SRI. BALAPPA BASAVANTAPPA BALIGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DAILY WAGER ASSISTANT, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 35. SRI. SHANKARAYYA BASAYYA BENAKATTIMATH, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: TORANAGATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 36. SRI. MAHAMMADSAB FAKRUSAB HOSAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: PEERANGUDI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 37. SRI. YALLAPPA HANAMANTAPPA PUJER, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: VENKATAPUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 38. SRI. YAMANAPPA DURAGAPPA GODACHI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: GONAGANUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 39. SRI. SHANKREPPA MALLAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: BIDAKI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 40. SRI. NOORSAB DASTGIRSAB HAWALDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: SOPPADLA, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 41. SRI. AJJAPPA RAYAPPA MALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: CHIPPALAKATTI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 42. SRI. MALLAPPA PARAPPA ANGADI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: BATAKURKI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 43. SRI. BHASHASAB MEERASAB KAUJALAGI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: BADAGURKI, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 44. SRI. BHIMAPPA AMOJI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: KADAKOL, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 45. SRI. MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA GATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: KADAKOL, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. 46. SRI. SATEPPA SHIVAPPA DEVARADDI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: WATCHMAN, R/O: SALAPUR, RANGE FOREST OFFICE, RAMDURG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED FOR SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R19, R2 TO R33, R35 TO R16; NOTICE TO R3, R20 AND R34 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2011 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.18/2010 BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed calling in question the award dated 05.03.2011 passed in Application No.18/2010 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondents filed an application No.18/2010 under Section 33(c)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472 seeking for unpaid dues and wages from 01.07.2007 to 31.01.2008 for having worked as watchmen and office assistants in the Social Forestry Department of the State. The State, who was arrayed as the respondent in the said proceedings, entered appearance and filed their objections and contested the proceedings. 1 Hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 The Labour Court by its order dated 05.03.2011 allowed the application and passed the following: “ORDER a. Application filed U/sec. 33 (C-2) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is hereby allowed. b. The respondents are hereby directed to pay Rs 3,800/- pm., for each applicant, for the period from 1.7.2007 to 31.1.2008 which amounts to Rs. 12,23,600/- along with compensatory cost of Rs. 375/- each.” 3. The primary contention put forth by the learned AGA is that the claim by the respondents/applicants is that they have worked in the Range Forest Office situated in Bailhongal, Savadatti and Ramadurg Taluks. However the Range Forest Officers of the said offices have not been made as parties to the proceedings. It is further contended that the documents produced by the respondents/applicants did not entitle them for the relief sought for since they are daily wagers and not monthly employees. 4. It is pertinent to note here that in the proceedings before the Labour Court, the District Forest Officer and Deputy Commissioner of Forest, Social Forestry - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 Division Belgaum was arrayed as respondent No.1, the Chief Executive, Zilla Panchayath, Belagavi was arrayed as respondent No.2 and the Deputy Forest Officer, Social Forestry Department, Zilla Panchayat Office was arrayed as respondent No.3. 5. It is clear from the aforementioned that the State was represented by some of its officials. 6. The contention put forth by the learned AGA that the jurisdictional Range Forest Officers have not been arrayed as parties in the proceedings before the Labour Court is ex-facie untenable and liable to be rejected in view of the fact that the representative of the State was arrayed as a party in the proceedings before the Labour Court. Once the State is represented, the requisite official/officer is required to contest the proceedings by furnishing all the necessary documents. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the same has not been done. No fault can be cast on the respondents, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 who are applicants before the Labour Court, for not arraying the jurisdictional Range Forest Officers as parties. It was the duty of the officers of the State to ensure that its relevant officer contests the proceedings. 8. It is further pertinent to note that after filing statement of objections, the State has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Labour Court noticing the said fact situation has held as follows: “7. Point No.1: The applicants have contended that they are working in the establishment of plantation employed by the government forest department run controlled, maintained and supervised by the respondents and their wages were paid at Rs.3800/- pm., through bank accounts and their signatures were taken in the wage registers. 8. A.W.1 has deposed in his cross examination before this court that they requested the concerned officer to pay the wages during the period from 1.7.2007 to 31.1.2008 and the officer promised to pay the wages for the above said period after receipt of the same from the government. 9. The applicants have produced office copies of notices issued to the respondents at Exs.A. 2 to A.5, A.14 & A.15. The respondents have not replied to the said notices. A.W.1 has deposed on oath before this court regarding the liability of the respondents, who have not denied either in cross-examination of A.W.1 or by entering the witness box. Therefore the evidence of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 the applicants remained unchallenged. The respondents have denied their liability to pay the arrears of wages for the above said period on the ground that all wages have been paid. The respondents are in the custody of all records regarding payment of wages for the relevant period 1.7.2007 to 31.1.2008. However the respondents have not produced any NMR's or wage registers to show that the wages of the applicants were paid for the said period. Therefore I am of the opinion that the respondents are liable to pay the arrears of wages of 46 applicants at the rate of Rs. 3,800/-pm., for the period 1.7.2007 to 31.1.2008 which amounts to Rs. 12,23,600 along with compensatory cost of Rs.375/-each. 10. The respondents have contended that this application is barred by law limitation. There is no limitation fixed U/sec. 33 (C)(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The limitation fixed is for disposal of the application by the court. Therefore I am of the opinion that this application is not barred by law limitation. Hence for the reasons stated above I hold that this application deserves to be allowed as prayed for and my answer on point No. 1 is in the affirmative.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is clear from the aforementioned that the respondents/applicants before the Labour Court have adduced evidence by examining A.W.1 and marked documents Ex.A-1 to 16. The petitioners not having adduced any evidence, the Labour Court was justified in allowing the application filed by the respondents. The - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11000 WP No. 66156 of 2011 petitioner-State has also not produced any documents in the present writ petition, which disentitle the respondents from the relief sought for by them before the Labour Court. 10. Hence, the petitioners have failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Labour Court is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with in the present petition. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18