- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 28965 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHESH M, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI MAHADEVA SETTY, R/AT NO.57-A, MANGALA-2 VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DIST, PIN-571 115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE PRINCIPAL MANAGER, (PRESENTLY THE GENERAL MANAGER), M/S SIDERFORGEROSSI INDIA PVT LTD NO.82-84, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA K R S ROAD, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-570016. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R RAVI AND M C MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU PERTAINING AT ANNEXURE-C AND GRANT THE PETITIONERQUASH THE AWARD DTD14.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN I.I.D. NO.9/2017 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C SINCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDSDIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WORKMAN IN HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH FULL Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 BACK WAGES CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.12.2018 in IID.No.9/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru. 2. In terms of the said award, the claim petition under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') is dismissed holding that the petitioner is not a workman under the respondent. The Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is employed through a contractor and accordingly has held that the relief cannot be claimed against the respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner- workman is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the documents marked at Ex.W.7 and Ex.W.8. The document at Ex.W.7 is the letter dated 28.11.2016 issued by the respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 and Ex.W.8 is the Identity card of the petitioner signed by the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the respondent - Establishment. 5. Referring to the letter dated 28.11.2016, it is urged that the petitioner was working as Fork Lift Operator since 01.06.2006. It is also urged that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was working under the independent contractor is also untenable as no such document is produced to substantiate the contention. 6. It is further urged that the document which is relied upon by the Labour Court to conclude that the petitioner was working under Padmakumari-the proprietor of M/s Padmakumari Enterprises is incorrect approach as said Padmakumari is not examined to prove the authenticity of the said document. 7. It is also urged that there is a prohibition to employ the Fork lift drivers through contractors. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 8. Thus, it is urged that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner was working under contractor. 9. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. 10. The Court has perused the impugned award as well as the documents placed on record on both sides. 11. Admittedly, no agreement is produced before the Court to show that the respondent had hired the petitioner through labour contractor. Though the document at Ex.M4 reveals that M/s Padmakumari Enterprises has proposed to supply manpower to the respondent -Establishment, it is to be noticed that the proposal is to supply the security persons and drivers. Ex.M5 is the attendance register for the month of August - 2009. It records name of the petitioner as having worked for 27 days and the said document also speaks about the labour contract charges to be paid by AMW-MGM Forgings Private Limited, Mysuru. Similar documents for the month of September-2009 to April-2017 are produced. These documents - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 indicate that the petitioner was working under M/s. Padmakumari Enterprises. 12. Ex.W4 - is identity card issued by AMW-MGM Forgings Private Limited, Mysuru. Ex.W5 is the temporary identity card issued by Employee State Insurance Corporation and name of the employee is shown as M.Mahesh. Ex.W7 is the certificate issued by the respondent and said certificate dated 28.11.2016 reveals that the petitioner is employed as Fork Lift driver with effect from 01.06.2006. 13. It is urged that the certificate issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation is in the nature of a Statutory document and carries more weight compared to the documents produced the respondent. 14. It is seen that the Labour Court has not considered the legal effect of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner. 15. In addition, it is also required to be noticed that the Ex.M4 is only a proposal to supply the manpower. And said proposal is to supply security personnel and drivers. It is to be - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 noticed that the petitioner was working as Fork Lift driver. It is not possible to straightaway conclude that Ex.M4 is a contract to supply the Fork Lift driver unless there is specific evidence in this behalf. This aspect is also not considered by the Labour Court. 16. The petitioner to substantiate his contention that he was working under the respondents has produced the policy issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The employer's name is mentioned as Sideforgerossi India Private Limited. The identity card issued by the respondent would also reveal that the said card is issued by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru. Ex.MW.7 is the letter issued by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited which would indicate that the petitioner is working as Fork Lift Operators since 01.06.2006. It is submitted that earlier the respondent - Establishment was owned by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru and now it is owned by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited. 17. These documents are not seriously disputed. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was working through a contractor namely M/s. Padmakumari Enterprises without - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019 analysing the legal effect of the documents produced by the petitioner. The Labour Court was also required to consider the legal effect of the documents produced by the petitioner. 18. Hence, without entering into the merits of the matter, keeping all contentions open, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned award dated 14.12.2018 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.9/2017 is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. (iv) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 25.03.2026 without any further notice. (v) Registry to send back the records forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23