- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 57156 OF 2015 (L-TER) BETWEEN: R.HARI KUMAR, S/O. LATE B.V.RAMU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.18, 3RD FLOOR, SRIKANTAIAH LAYOUT, CRESENT KUMARA KRUPA, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.J.SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. ALANKAR PEARL PLAZA SHOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NO.410, 2ND FLOOR, ALANKAR PEARL PLAZA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, ALANKAR PEARL PLAZA SHOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES, FOURTH ZONE, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESWARAM, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.A.J.Srinivasan., counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: The petitioner joined the respondent in 1989 as a clerk and was subsequently designated as an Administrative Officer on 12.07.1999. The first party was engaged in clerical duties for the second party’s association and did not exercise any managerial or supervisory powers. The second party is a registered body under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, established with the object of maintaining the premises of the shopping complex - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 and carrying out allied activities. The affairs of the second party are managed by the Shop Owners Association’s managing committee. On 11.11.2013, the managing committee, without any justification, demanded the resignation of the first party. Upon his refusal, he was assaulted and threatened, compelling him to lodge a police complaint. Thereafter, the first party was prevented from discharging his duties. Subsequently, he received a letter falsely stating that his oral request to resign had been accepted and that he stood relieved from service with effect from 20.11.2013. The first party had never tendered his resignation, either orally or in writing, as alleged. Despite repeated requests to be permitted to resume work, the managing committee did not allow him to do so and, on a false pretext, terminated his services with effect from 20.11.2013. The first party obtained an injunction order in O.S.8417/2013. However, notwithstanding the said order, the second party continued to deny him access to work, contending that he had already been relieved of his duties. The injunction order was subsequently vacated. Thereafter, the first party - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 raised an industrial dispute challenging the termination of his services under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labor Court, by its order dated 23.06.2015, rejected the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Ex.M24 to contend that in the minutes of meeting, it has been unanimously decided to pay the dues as per law and exgratia, if any. Counsel, therefore, submits that the Labor Court is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and the award is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the following decision. ARKAL GOVIND RAJ RAO V/S. CIBA GEIGY OF INDIA LTD., BOMBAY IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2638/1980 reported in AIR 1985 SC 985. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the records with utmost care. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 5. The point that would arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, having been appointed to the post of Administrator, can claim the status of a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that he was also discharging incidental clerical duties. 6. The facts have already been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The first party has contended that, though appointed as an Administrator, his duties were clerical in nature and he attended to all kinds of work. This Court has duly noted the said contention. It is, however, undisputed that the first party was appointed to the post of Administrator on 12.07.1999 (Ex.W1). The only plea advanced is that he was also discharging incidental duties akin to those of a clerk, and therefore, he must be treated as a workman. This contention cannot be accepted. The reason is apparent: once appointed as an Administrator, the mere performance of incidental clerical tasks cannot confer upon him the status of a workman. The administrative designation held by the first party remains unaffected by the incidental clerical duties performed, and such incidental work does not alter or diminish the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29217 WP No. 57156 of 2015 substantive nature of his appointment. Furthermore, the Labor Court extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the claim petition. This Court has dismissed the writ petition, the request to consider to pay the dues as per law and exgratia, if any cannot be considered. I find no grounds to quash the award. The petition is devoid of merit. Resultantly, it is rejected. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decision. Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, interim order granted if any stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66