- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8172 WP No. 6976 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6976 OF 2024 (L-PG) BETWEEN: SRI. NAGESH, S/O LATE SHIVALINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT OPPOSITE GAJJALAGERE DAIRY, BASAVANAPURA GAJJALAGERE POST, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571125. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, MYSURU DIVISION, MYSURU - 575001. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY LABOUR INSPECTOR, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, MADDUR CIRCLE, MADDUR - 571125. 3. SMT JANAKI, W/O CHINNATHAMBI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKALELE VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, R3 SERVED) Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8172 WP No. 6976 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DTD 04.09.2023 MADE IN DISPUTE NO.SAKA AMY/KAVEKA/CR-46/2019.20 BY THE R1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Respondent No.3 though served, is not represented. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the first respondent/Assistant Labour Commissioner under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. In terms of the impugned order, the first petitioner is directed to pay ₹1,33,878/- to the third respondent. In the said amount ₹63,939/- is the penalty. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would invite the attention of the Court to the complaint marked at Annexure-B. In the said complaint, the third respondent has made a statement that since last 13 years the third respondent was working in the field as well as 'alemane' as a coolie. It is - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8172 WP No. 6976 of 2024 further stated that after the demise of her husband Chinnatambi, the third respondent worked up to December, 2018. It is also stated in the said complaint that the petitioner/employer used to pay the amount in cash and did not collect any receipt. Having said so, the third respondent claimed for arrears of wages. The arrears of wages are not quantified in the said application. The period from which the wages are due is not specified in the application. 4. It appears that the petitioner has replied to the said notice denying the claim. The petitioner thereafter did not participate in the proceedings. The authority appears to have recorded the evidence of the third respondent and petitioner did not participate in the further enquiry. Based on the affidavit filed by the third respondent, the impugned order was passed. 5. It is noticed that the application does not indicate any arrears. It also does not indicate as to the date of default, if any, on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the application states that the petitioner used to make payment in cash and did not collect any receipt for having made the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8172 WP No. 6976 of 2024 payment. 6. It appears that the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings because of the statement made in the complaint, wherein there is no allegation relating to any arrears, and the authority, acting on the affidavit filed by the third respondent, passed the impugned order. The Court is of the view that the authority has not paid attention to the contents of the complaint, and the contents of the complaint do not indicate any arrears. In any case, it is also noticed that the petitioner did not appear before the authority to contest the matter. 7. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Keeping all questions open, the matter is referred to the first respondent to consider the case afresh. The petitioner shall participate in the enquiry and is at liberty to adduce evidence, if any in support of his claim. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.09.2023 is set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8172 WP No. 6976 of 2024 (iii) The matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the claim afresh. (iv) The respondent No.3 is also permitted to adduce evidence in support of the claim. (v) The amount in deposit shall be released in favour of the petitioner. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. (vii) The first respondent shall issue notice to the third respondent as well as the petitioner fixing the hearing date. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65