- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 12538 OF 2013 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2982 OF 2015 (L-RES) IN WP No. 12538/2013 BETWEEN: SRI RAJAIAH, S/O MATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, QUARTERS NO.1, B. KATEHALLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA, HASSAN POST, DISTRICT: HASSAN. &PETITIONER (BY SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT LEKHA K G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, K.I.A.D.B, RASHTROTHANA PARISHAD BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, K.I.A.D.B. ZONAL OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, H.M. PURA ROAD, HASSAN, DISTRICT: HASSAN - 573201. 3. SRI M UDAYAR SWAMY, PROPRIETOR, MALNAD SECURITY AGENCIES (R) Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 OPP: PLANTERS BANK, NO.342/1, GURUKRUPA, KARIGOWDA COLONY, POST: HASSAN - 573201, DISTRICT: HASSAN. 4. SRI KANTHARAJU, PROPRIETOR, MANJUNATHA SECURITY SERVICE, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, SHARADA NURSING HOME, BELOW KOTHARI MEDICALS, POST: HASSAN, DISTRICT: HASSAN - 573201. (V/O/DT 11/8/14, R4 IS DELETED) 5. SRI PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, PROPRIETOR, SUPREME DETECTIVE & SECURITY AGENCIES (R), HEMAVATHI NAGARA, NEAR H.S.PRAKASH, M.L.A'S, RESIDENCE ROAD, POST: HASSAN, DISTRICT: HASSAN - 573201. (V/O/DT 11/8/14, R5 IS DELETED) 6. GOUTHAM, PROPRIETOR, GOUTHAM SECURITY AND DETECTIVE SERVICE AND GOUTHAM CONVENT, BELOW IDEAL GIM, B.M. ROAD, NEAR: CHANNAVEERAPPA FRUIT SHOP, SANTHEPETE, HASSAN POST, DISTRICT: HASSAN - 573201. 7. SRI TEJAS, PROPRIETOR, HASSAN (HASSANAMBA) SECURITY AND DETECTIVE SERVICES (R) OPP: SHIVA WOODEN FURNITURES, NEAR RAMSWAROOP HOSPITAL, SHANKARA MUTT ROAD, POST: HASSAN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 DISTIRCT: HASSAN - 573201. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K B MONESH KUMAR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI M VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, V/O/DT 11/8/14, R4 & R5 ARE DELETED, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN REV. PETITION NO.01 OF 2010 DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN AS PER ANEXURE-JDIRECT THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO EXTEND BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED 10.10.2006 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-F. IN WP NO. 2982/2015 BETWEEN: 1. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KIADB, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. 2. THE CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIADB, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, R P BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 002. 3. THE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIADB, ZONAL OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ZONE, H N PURA ROAD, HASSAN-573 201. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJIAH, S/O MOTIAH, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 MAJOR BY AGE WATER PUMP OPERATOR, QUARTERS NO.-01,B KATEHALLI, INDUSTRIAL AREA POST, HASSAN-573 201. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN,ADVOCATE FOR SMT LEKHA K G, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS. QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.31.12.2013 BEING PRODUCED AS ANNEX-H THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Writ petition No.12538/2013 is filed by the workman assailing the order dated 22.11.2012, in Revision Petition No.01/2010, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Hassan. 2. In terms of the impugned order, the revision petition filed by the present respondents No.1 and 2 was allowed. Consequently, the order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Authority in K.S.C.E. Appeal No.10/2005-06, under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (for short 8Act, 19619) is set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 3. W.P.No.2982/2015 is filed by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) assailing the order dated 31.12.2013, passed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act, 1936). 4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.No.12538/2013 and respondent in W.P.No.2982/2015 is referred to as workman. The petitioners in W.P.No.2982/2015 and respondents No.1 and 2 in W.P.No.12538/2013 are referred to as KIADB. 5. In the claim under the Act, 1936, in addition to KIADB, Malnad Security Agencies, Manjunatha Security Services, Supreme Detective and Security Agency, Goutham Security and Detective Service, and Hassan Security and Detective Services are also arrayed as parties. 6. The order under the Act, 1961 against KIADB directs payment of Rs.53,900/-. 7. The learned counsel for the workman would submit that the workman was working under KIADB as a pump house operator since 15.03.1993. KIADB without any reason and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 enquiry has denied employment to the workman since 20.12.2005 and virtually terminated the service. Said order was called in question before the Authority under Section 39(3) of the Act, 1961. 8. KIADB has taken a contention that the workman was employed through different labour contractors, during different periods, however, KIADB failed to establish the said contention by adducing acceptable evidence is the submission on behalf of the workman. 9. The Authority on considering the materials on record has concluded that the workman was duly employed by KIADB and directed workman to be reinstated and in the alternative directed the KIADB to pay Rs.53,900/- i.e., 13 month9s salary (one month9s salary for each years of service). 10. Aggrieved by the order, directing payment, invoking Section 39(4) of the Act, 1961, the KIADB filed Revision Petition before the Principal District Court. In terms of the Order dated 22.11.2012 impugned in W.P. No. 12538/2012, the District Court has set aside the order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 11. In the meantime on 16.11.2012, the workman filed application under the Act, 1936 claiming arrears of wages from January 2006. The Authority directed payment of wages from January 2006 till 31.10.2012 and quantified the arrears at Rs.1,49,600/-. 12. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the KIADB has filed Writ Petition No.2982/2015. 13. Learned counsel for the workman would urge that the order passed by the learned District Judge is erroneous as the Court proceeded on the wrong premise that the workman has not produced the documents for having been employed under KIADB. 14. It is also urged that KIADB has not produced any documents to show that the workman was employed through a labour contractor and that being the position, the learned District Judge could not have set aside the order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961. 15. Defending the order passed under the Act, 1936, learned counsel for the workman urged that the workman - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 worked under the KIADB till he attained 60 years and thereafter, the workman is still working as pump house operator and no wages are paid since 2005. 16. It is urged that the workman rightly filed an application for payment of wages under the Act, 1936 and said application is allowed. 17. It is further urged that the workman in this petition has filed an affidavit stating that he is still working under the KIADB and has not been paid the wages, and there is no counter to the said affidavit. 18. Learned counsel for the workman has filed an application on 29.01.2026 and produced seven documents. It is submitted that the documents are obtained from the KIADB pursuant to an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 19. Documents No.2 to 5 are said to be the instructions to the workman by the KIADB to work in a particular place; Document No.6 is said to be the daily case status report before the District Judge in relation to the appeal in R.A.No.81/2013 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 filed by KIADB, against the decree for injunction in favour of the workman. Said appeal is dismissed and the decree for injunction in favour of the workman in respect of the shed meant for pump house operator working for KIADB is confirmed and KIADB is restrained from evicting the workman without due process. Document No.7 is said to be the residence certificate issued by the Tahsildar to the workman and the Panchayat Officer. 20. Learned counsel for the workman would submit that the workman is still occupying the shed provided by KIADB and that would establish that he is still working under KIADB. 21. Respondents No.4 and 5 are deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 11.08.2014. 22. Respondents No.6 and 7 are served but they are not represented. 23. As already noticed, W.P.No.2982/2015 is filed by KIADB against the order passed under the Act, 1936. In terms of the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, KIADB is directed to pay the wages from - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2012 under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 24. The KIADB is before this Court on the premise that the workman was not the employee of KIADB. 25. Learned counsel for KIADB would urge that the District Judge is justified in allowing the Revision Petition on the premise that the workman has not produced any records to show that he was employed by KIADB. It is urged that at the most, one can conclude that the workman was working for KIADB through a labour contractor till 1999 and there is no relationship employer and employee between the KIADB and the workman. 26. The workman being employed by the labour contractor, the compensation/wages if any, is to be paid, then it is to be paid by the labour contractor. 27. It is also urged that in the absence of any document relating to appointment issued by KIADB and any documents relating to payment of wages by KIADB, the authority could not have held that the workman was working under KIADB. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 28. Impugning the order passed under the Act, 1936 directing payment of arrears of wages it is urged that, the workman claimed that he was denied employment from 20.12.2005. Authority under the Act, 1961 though directed reinstatement and payment of compensation in case of no reinstatement, the District Judge on a revision filed by the KIADB allowed the revision and rightly set-aside the order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961. 29. It is also urged that having raised a contention that he was denied employment with effect from 21.12.2005, the workman cannot make a claim for payment of wages from 01.01.2006. 30. It is also urged that the workman worked as pump operator from 1995 till 1999 through the labour contractor and was never the employee of KIADB, as such, there cannot be any order directing payment of wages beyond 1999. Since no claim is made for payment of wages for the work discharged prior to 1999 the workman is not entitled to any relief. 31. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 32. It is to be noticed that, even KIADB is admitting the fact that the workman worked for KIADB till March 1999. However, the contention is, the workman was working through a contractor and not as an employee of the KIADB. 33. It is to be noticed that the workman has established that he is occupying the shed belonging to the KIADB which is meant for the pump operator working for KIADB. This is evident from the decree for injunction in O.S. No. 174/2004 in favour of the workman which has attained finality, as R.A.No.81/2013 filed by KIADB is dismissed confirming the decree for injunction which restrained KIADB from evicting the workman without due process of law. 34. Though the suit is one for injunction, the Trial Court, before recording the finding that the plaintiff (workman) is in possession, incidentally has observed that the relationship of employer and workman is established and has come to the conclusion that the workman is in lawful possession of the shed meant for employees of KIADB. 35. In the cross-examination, the witness examined on behalf of the KIADB, has stated that the workman is working as - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 pump house operator despite objection by the KIADB. The said statement dated 30.10.2013 in the cross examination is referred to in the order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure-H) passed by Assistant Labour Commissioner. The relevant portion of the said statement dated 30.10.2013 reads as under: ...."¤ÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀAvÉ ¤±Á£É - Dgï4 zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ gÁdAiÀÄå EªÀgÀÄ ¢/15-03-1993jAzÀ vÀºÀ¯ïªÀgÉUÉ ©.PÁnúÀ½îAiÀÄ PÉÊUÁjPÁ ªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥ÀA¥ï ºË¸ï£À ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EA¢UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. KPÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. F PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ 2003-04£Éà ¸Á°£À°è oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj oÁuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀAiÀÄ°è §UɺÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ©r¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀæªÀĪÀ»¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è" (Emphasis supplied) 36. The authority under the Act, 1936 has relied on the said statement to hold that the workman was working under the KIADB. 37. The contention that the workman continued to work inspite of the objection by the employer, and refusal to make payment sounds strange. Though it is stated that complaint is filed by the KIADB against the workman, for working as pump - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 operator despite objection, the witness examined on behalf of KIADB stated that the workman worked despite objection. 38. More important, the KIADB has not produced the records to show that all its sites in the Industrial layout are sold. It is not its case that it has not retained any property in the said area. Likewise, it is not the case of the KIADB that the pump operator was no longer required after 2005. The shed which the workman is occupying is owned by KIADB. It is not its case that it has not owned the pump or pump house. It is not its case that it is not operating the pump. 39. It is not established that someone else is operating the pump owned by KIADB, in place of the workman. More particularly, in a situation where it is admitted by the KIADB that workman was working till 1999, and when it is established that workman is still in occupation of the shed meant for the pump operator, the Court can draw an inference that the workman was denied employment without any reason. 40. It is established beyond doubt that the workman is occupying the shed meant for pump house operator as there is a decree in this behalf. In the peculiar facts of the case, the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 Court may have to infer that since the workman was occupying the shed meant of pump operator and had the benefit of the injunction order, continued to work, with a hope that he can continue to occupy the premises as long as he worked. 41. The fact that the workman was working from 1995 to 1999 is not disputed by KIADB. The contention is that he was working through the labour contractor. Admittedly, no records are produced to show that the labour contractors had the registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. That by itself is not sufficient to hold that the workman was not under Contractors. However, the alleged contractors have not led evidence to show that the workman was working under them and they have paid the wages. 42. The invoices produced by the KIADB for the period 01.04.1996 to 01.04.1999 would show that the KIADB hired some services from Contractor till 1999. However no records are produced to show that someone else operated the pump after 1999. The workman is occupying the shed meant for pump operator till toady. Thus the logical inference is that the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 workman continued to work, though he was denied employment on 21.12.2005. 43. It is to be noticed that remaining respondents who are said to be the contractors have not led any evidence to support the case of KIADB and have not led evidence to show that the workman received wages from the contractors. Thus, even if the version of KIADB is to be believed that workman was employed by the contractors, what is to be noticed is that the Court has come to the conclusion that the workman worked for KIADB till he raised the dispute in November 2012 under the Act, 1936. 44. Learned counsel for the KIADB would refer to the documents produced along with the memo filed in 24.02.2026 to urge the contention that the workman was working for KIADB through a labour contractor from 1996 till March-1999. These documents do not explain the situation why and how the workman was allowed to occupy the shed meant for pump operator beyond 1999. And those documents on the other hand point to the fact that, even according to KIADB, workman - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 worked till 1999. "Whether he worked as a contract labourer or as employee of the KIADB?" is the question. 45. As already noticed even if the workman is employed by the contractor, no evidence is placed to show that wages are paid by the contractor. Thus, in that situation the KIADB is liable to pay wages as a principal employer. 46. Now the question is, "Whether the workman is entitled to the benefit of order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1936 as well as the Order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961?" 47. It is to be noticed that the learned District Judge has set-aside the order passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961 in the Revision Petition. The Authority under the Act, 1936 has directed payment of wages since 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2012. The Authority under the Act, 1961 had directed payment of compensation of Rs.53,900/-. 48. The workman cannot claim both reliefs. It is not a case of lawful termination. It is not the case of KIADB that the workman was paid wages after 2005. Thus, there is no - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 difficulty in holding that the wages are not paid post January, 2005. Since there is no lawful termination, workman is to be paid wages. The Court in the peculiar facts of the case where the workman is occupying the shed meant for pump house operator and in a situation KIADB has not established that someone else working as pump house operator or that work is no longer required, would assume that the workman discharged the said duty by occupying the shed meant for pump house operator till 2012. 49. Hence, the workman is entitled to the wages @ Rs.1,49,600/- as determined by the Authority under the Act, 1936 and not Rs.6,37,700/- as claimed by the workman. 50. The workman is not entitled to compensation ordered under the Act, 1961. 51. Learned counsel for the workman urged that the workman worked beyond 2012 till this date, and he should be paid wages till this date. Whether the workman worked beyond 2012 or not, is not the subject matter of this petition. Thus, the Court will not get into that question. The workman if at all is denied payment of wages post 2012, has to raise a separate - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 claim if so advised in law, subject to all just exceptions. And if any such application is filed, same shall be considered in accordance with law. 52. It is submitted that in terms of the interim order granted by the Court, some amount towards arrears of wages is deposited before the Court. 53. During the course of hearing it is submitted at the Bar that the workman has already crossed the age of superannuation. The workman has not handed over the possession of the premises belonging to KIADB which he is occupying. It is the contention of the workman that he is protected by the decree for injunction and the KIADB has to evict him through due process of law by initiating appropriate proceeding. 54. Since, the workman has attained the age of superannuation, the workman cannot claim to occupy the property till order in one more proceeding for eviction. Such contention is untenable. Under these circumstances, the Court has to direct the workman to vacate the premises and same - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 shall be the condition precedent to receive the arrears of wages. 55. Hence the following ORDER i. Writ Petition No.12538/2013 is allowed-in-part. ii. Writ Petition No.2982/2015 is allowed-in-part. iii. The order of the Principal District Judge, Hassan dated 22.11.2012 is set-aside. The order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Authority under the Act, 1961 directing compensation is also set-aside. iv. Petitioner/workman to vacate the premises within three months from today. v. 75% of the amount (inclusive of interest) in deposit be released in favour of the petitioner/workman within a month from the date of receipt of copy of the order . vi. Balance 25% of the amount in deposit (inclusive of interest) and any other balance due in terms of the order - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13005 WP No. 12538 of 2013 C/W WP No. 2982 of 2015 passed by the Authority under the Act, 1936 shall be released after the workman vacates the premises and issues acknowledgement in writing for having handed over possession of the shed meant for pump house operator to KIADB. vii. The petitioner/workman is not entitled to compensation as granted by the authority under the Act, 1961. viii. No order as to costs. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP/BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22