- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 55457 OF 2018 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI PURANDARA K, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SON OF SRI ANANADA RAO, KUDUMBALADI HOUSE, KEDILA VILLAGE, BANTWALA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY O K ANANTHAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAIK V S, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S MOTT MAC DONALD PVT LTD., 44 DR R G THANDANI MARG, MUMBAI-400 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) 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, D.K. MANGALURU, PERTAINING TO ANNX-E, AND GRANT THE PETIIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.QUASH THE AWARD DTD. 29.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, IN I.D.R.NO. 4 OF 2011 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-E, SINCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS COMMITTED ERRORS Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC. 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 This Writ Petition is filed assailing the award dated 29.08.2017 in terms of which the claim petition filed by the employee is rejected. The employee is before this Court. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner was not a workman of the respondent - Management at a relevant point of time and accordingly held that the claim petition under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not maintainable. 2. Certain facts narrated in the petition are as under: On 30.01.2003, petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector by the respondent - Management. Later, in February 2005, the petitioner was designated a Junior Engineer. On 01.07.2008, the petitioner was promoted to grade 'C' with immediate effect. It is stated that on 24.10.2008, petitioner was on duty and met with a road accident at about 04:30 p.m. as he fell from his bike and the petitioner proceeded to take - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 leave as per the advice of the Doctor. It is further stated that on 30.10.2008, the petitioner's mother contacted the officials of the respondent - Management over telephone and stated that the petitioner is not in a position to discharge his duties on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. It is stated that petitioner was denied employment with effect from 01.11.2008 and the petitioner initially approached the Consumer Forum. On 02.09.2010, in terms of the order passed by the Consumer Forum, the petitioner's complaint is closed with a liberty to approach appropriate authority. 3. Thus, the petitioner raised industrial dispute challenging the alleged order of denial of employment. Before the Labour Court, the respondent- Management raised a contention that the petitioner was not a workman at relevant period and, as such, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. 4. Before the Labour Court, the parties led evidence. The Labour Court concluded that the petitioner is not a workman under the respondent - Management as he was working under the supervisory capacity and drawing salary of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 more than Rs.10,000/- per month and accordingly rejected the claim petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the salary of the petitioner was more than Rs.10,000/- per month, he never discharged the duties of a Supervisor and he was a workman under the respondent and he was acting as per the directions of the team leader and none reported to him and he had no supervisory role while discharging the duties. Thus, it is urged that the Labour Court committed mistake in holding that the petitioner is not a workman and would urge that the petition be allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court be set-aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Management would urge that the petitioner was employed as a Work Inspector in the year 2003 and later in February 2005, he was promoted as Junior Engineer and in the year 2008 he was again promoted to grade 'C' post. It is urged that the respondent is involved in the business of laying pipe lines and other civil works and the petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector initially in the year 2003 and later in the year 2005, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 he was promoted. Petitioner was drawing salary of Rs.13,625/- with effect from 01.07.2008 after the promotion and he was required to supervise the work of the workmen who were deployed to dig the channels and lay the pipelines. 7. It is also admitted in the cross-examination that the petitioner had the authority to supervise the work of the workmen and in case if the work was not found satisfactory and not as per the design approved by the Management, the petitioner had the authority to get the work redone from the labourers. 8. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the work discharged by the petitioner cannot be termed as work of a workman and it was supervisory work, as such the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the claim petition. 9. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records and also the impugned award . 10. The Labour Court on appreciation of the award has concluded that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.13,625/- per month at a relevant point of time in the year - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 2008 and he was carrying out supervisory role while being employed by the respondent. It is also admitted in the cross- examination that the petitioner was required to supervise the work of a workman who were deployed to lay pipelines and other civil works and he also had the authority to get the work redone in case the work was not completed satisfactorily and to the requirement. 11. In the light of above said facts, the Labour Court has taken a view that the petitioner does not fall under the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 12. Under these circumstances, the Court is also of the view that no case is made out to hold that the petitioner was a workman at relevant point of time. Hence, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 13. However, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner's grievance is not adjudicated on merits as the same is rejected for want of jurisdiction by the Labour Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2653 WP No. 55457 of 2018 14. The petitioner is at liberty to seek such other remedy as available in law. And in case, such remedy is availed, the time spent in prosecuting the present petition from the date of raising the industrial dispute till this date has to be excluded while computing the limitation. It is also made clear that the time spent in prosecuting the proceeding before the Consumer Forum shall also be excluded in computing the limitation. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41