Karnataka High Court
M/S. Jsw Steel Ltd vs Government Of Karnataka on 2 May, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH R
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 106038 OF 2023 (L-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 101114 OF 2022 (S-DIS)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101905 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101908 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101909 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101911 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101912 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101915 OF 2022 (L-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 101920 OF 2022 (L-RES)
IN WP NO.106038 OF 2022
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA BETWEEN
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA JSW ENERGY LTD.,
VIJAYANAGAR WORKS
P.O.VIDYANAGAR-583275,
TORANAGALLU, SANDUR TALUK,
BALLARY DISTRICT, KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SENIOR MANAGER(LEGAL)
w...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR,
Ms. SHEETAL V. KILLEKAR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. K. SRINIVAS RAO S/O. K. RAMANNA
981/D, 14TH MAIN, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
ALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560065
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANGOUDAR, AND
SRI. ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER
OF REFERENCE DATED 05.06.2023, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-
"H", IN ¸ÀASÁå:PÁE/198/Lrf/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
AND ETC.
IN WP NO.101114 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY GENERAL MANAGER,
CORPORATE RELATIONS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
2. HARI M. S/O. SRI. ANANDA M.
BEHIND TIPPUSULTAN HOSTEL,
FORT, BALLARI-583102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 07.01.2022 IN NO.
KAA.E/383/IDG/2021(ANNEXURE-T) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1;
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY IN APPL.
10(1)(C)/4/2022, (ANNEXURE-U) AND ETC.
IN WP NO.101905 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY GENERAL MANAGER,
CORPORATE RELATIONS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. K. BASAVARAJ,
S/O. VENKATESH K.,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: JR. ENGINEER,
ANJINEYA TEMPLE,
WARD NO.01, BAGEVADI,
SIRUGUPPA TALUK,
BELLARY-583121.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER
OF REFERENCE DATED 07.01.2022 IN NO.KAA E/392/IDG/2021
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 ; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022
ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELLARY IN APPL.10(1)(C)/7/2022 (ANNEXURE-G)
IN WP NO.101908 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY GENERAL MANAGER,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
CORPORATE RELATIONS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. N. DEVARAJA
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT MANAGER,
WARD NO.25, NEAR ESWARA TEMPLE,
ESWARANAGARA, HOSPET TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED:7.1.2022 IN NO.KAA
E/393/IDG/2021 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1;
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN
APPL.10(1)(C)/13/2022, (ANNEXURE-G) AND ETC.
IN WP NO.101909 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. B. VASANTHA MADHAVA
S/O. SRI. RAHAVENDRA ACHAR,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: DEPUTY MANAGER,
8TH CROSS RIGHT, KAPPAGAL ROAD END,
BELLARI-583103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER
OF REFERENCE DATED 7.1.2022 IN NO.KAA E/382/IDG/2021
(ANNEXURE-R) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1; QUASH THE NOTICE
DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN APPL.NO.10(1)(C)/5/2022
(ANNEXURE-S) AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 101911 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. NOOR AHMED,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: DEPUTY MANAGER,
EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY,
BY PASS ROAD, DOOR NO.78/1,
COWL BAZAAR, BELLARY-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 7.1.2022 IN NO.KAA
E/386/IDG/2021 (ANNEXURE-Q) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1;
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN APPL.
10(1)(C)/1/2022,(ANNEXURE-R).
IN WP NO. 101912 OF 2022,
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. A.G. JOSHI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: MANAGAER,
MMTC COLONY,
OPP. TO MMTC PARK,
S.N.PET, 3RD CROSS,
BELLARY, BELLARY DISTRICT-583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 07.01.2022 IN NO.
KAA E/381/IDG/2021 PASSED BY (ANNEXURE-Q) PASSED BY
RESPONDNET NO.1 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1;
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN APPL.
10(1)(C)/6/2022(ANNEXURE-R).
IN WP NO. 101915 OF 2022
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. SUDARSHAN S. PAI,
C/O. SATISH B. PAI,
NEAR POLICE QUARTERS,
KUMTA, UTTARA KANNADA-583104.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 07.01.2022 IN NO.
KAA E/390/IDG/2021 (ANNEXURE-Q) PASSED BY RESPONDENT
NO.1; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BELLARY IN APPL.
10(1)(C)/9/2022(ANNEXURE-R).
IN WP NO. 101920 OF 2022
BETWEEN
M/S. JSW STEEL LTD.,
P.O. VIDYANAGAR-583275
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
(TORANAGALLU), BALLARI,
(KARNATAKA) INDIA,
R/BY SENIOR MANAGER (LEGAL)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. PRABHAKAR &
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. RAGHUNATH P.S. GHORPADE,
C/O. M. ERANNA,
PLOT NO.C-12,
PATEL NAGAR, 4TH CROSS,
BELLARY.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1,
SRI. RAVI HEGDE AND
SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE ORDER
QUASHING THE ORDER OF REFERENCE DATED 7.1.2022 IN NO.KAA
E/385/IDG/2021 (ANNEXURE-R) PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1;
QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, IN
APPL.10(1)(C)/2/2022,(ANNEXURE-S).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.106038/2023 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the order of reference dated
05.06.2023 produced vide Annexure-"H", in
Sankhya.Kaae/198/ IDG/2023 passed by
Respondent No.1.
ii. Grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble Court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101114/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the Order of Reference dated
07.01.2022 in No. Kaa.e/383/
idg/2021(Annexure-T) passed by Respondent
No.1;
ii. Quash the notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary in Appl. 10(1)(c)/4/2022, (Annexure-
U).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as maybe deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
3. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101905/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the Order of Reference dated
07.01.2022 in No.Kaa e/392/IDG/2021 passed
by Respondent no.1 (Annexure-F) passed by
Respondent No.1;
ii. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary in appl.10(1)(c)/7/2022(Annexure-G).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as maybe deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
4. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101908/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate order
quashing the order of reference dated:7.1.2022
in No.kaa e/393/idg/2021 (Annexure-F) passed
by Respondent No.1;
2. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by the
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bellary, in
Appl.10(1)(c)/13/2022, (Annexure-G).
3. Grant any other relief/s as maybe deemed fit and
proper by this Hon'ble court, in the interest of
justice and equity.
5. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101909/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
Order quashing the Order of Reference dated
7.1.2022 in No.Kaa e/382/IDG/2021
(Annexure-R) passed by Respondent No.1;
2. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary, in Appl.No.10(1)(c)/5/2022 (Annexure-
S).
3. Grant any other relief/s as maybe deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the interest
of justice and equity.
6. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101911/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the Order of Reference dated
7.1.2022 in No.Kaa e/386/IDG/2021
(Annexure-Q) passed by Respondent no.1;
ii. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary, in Appl. 10(1)(c)/1/2022,(Annexure-
R).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
7. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101912/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
Order quashing the Order of Reference dated
07.01.2022 in No. Kaa e/381/IDG/2021
passed by (Annexure-Q) passed by
Respondent No.1 passed by Respondent no.1;
ii. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary, in Appl. 10(1)(c)/6/2022(Annexure-R).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
8. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101915/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the Order of Reference dated
07.01.2022 in No. Kaa e/390/IDG/2021
(Annexure-Q) passed by Respondent No.1;
ii. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge
Bellary in Appl. 10(1)(c)/9/2022(Annexure-R).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
9. The Petitioner-employer in WP No.101920/2022 is
before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate
order quashing the Order of Reference dated
7.1.2022 in No.Kaa e/385/IDG/2021
(Annexure-R) passed by Respondent No.1;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
ii. Quash the Notice dated 21.01.2022 issued by
the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bellary, in Appl.10(1)(c)/2/2022, (Annexure-
S).
iii. Grant any other relief/s as may be deemed fit
and proper by this Hon'ble court, in the
interest of justice and equity.
10. Essentially, the Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of
reference made by the Government of Karnataka in
each of the above matters and it is in that
background that the aforesaid reliefs are sought for.
11. FACTS IN WP NO.106038/2023
11.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be a 'Graduate
Engineer Trainee' appointed with the Petitioner
on 08.05.2003. Thereafter, he was appointed
as Junior Manager-Operation on 17.08.2004,
who is stated to have tendered his resignation
for personal reasons on 06.08.2020, which
came to be accepted by the Petitioner employer
on 30.09.2020.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
11.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
21.09.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing necessary application.
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
11.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, amount of Rs.19,47,368/- was
paid to Respondent No.2 on 28.12.2020. It is
after more than 19 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
11.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his reply
raising objection with regard to the jurisdiction
and maintainability of the proceedings before
the Deputy Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer alleging that Respondent
No.2 was working in a managerial cadre and
was not a 'workman' within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act
(hereinafter referred to as the 'ID Act' for
brevity).
11.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 05.06.2023,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. Srinivasa Rao who was
working with the Management of M/s. JSW
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Energy Limited., Bellary, as Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would
prove that the Management of M/s. JSW
Energy Ltd., has obtained his resignation
forcefully and relieved him from service with
effect from 30.09.2020 without paying any
compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is
entitled to?
11.6. In pursuance of which, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/2/2023 and issued
notice to the Petitioner on 19.06.2023. It is
challenging the same, the Petitioner is before
this Court.
12. FACTS IN WP NO.101114/2022
12.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as a
Junior Engineer (BOF-Operations) S3 Grade
with the Petitioner on 26.07.1999. Thereafter,
he was promoted to Assistant Manager vide
promotion order dated 29.04.2014 and is
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
stated to have tendered his resignation for
personal reasons on 28.07.2020, which came to
be accepted by the Petitioner-employer on
31.07.2020.
12.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
27.10.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing a necessary application.
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
12.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, the amount of Rs.19,02,524/-
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
was paid to Respondent No.2 on 15.11.2020. It
is after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
12.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his reply
raising objection with regard to the jurisdiction
and maintainability of the proceedings before
the Deputy Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer alleging that Respondent
No.2 was working in a managerial cadre and
was not a 'workman' within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
12.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. Hari M. who was working
with the Management of M/s. JSW Energy
Limited., Bellary, as Assistant Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would
prove that the Management of M/s. JSW
Energy Ltd., has obtained his resignation
forcefully and relieved him from service with
effect from 01.08.2020 without paying any
compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is
entitled to?
12.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/4/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.03.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
13. FACTS IN WP NO.101905/2022
13.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as a
Diploma Engineering Trainee with the Petitioner
on 12.05.2018. Clause 3(iv) of the appointment
order states that either of the parties may
terminate the employment by giving one
month's notice or salary in lieu thereof.
Respondent No.2, accepting the same, reported
for duty 14.05.2018.
13.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 was
continuously irregular in his duties and had last
attended work on 21.04.2020 and stopped
coming to work thereafter despite repeated
reminders from the Petitioner. As a last chance,
Respondent No. 2 vide letter 16.07.2020 was
informed that failing to report for duty on or
before 23.07.2020 would result in presuming
abandonment of his services to the company,
and his further employment would thus stand
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
terminated. Respondent No.2 did not report to
work on the said date, and as per the terms
and conditions of the appointment order, the
Petitioner terminated him from service via
memo dated 14.08.2020 without attaching any
stigma so as to safeguard his future.
13.3. Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
challenging his termination from service and a
notice dated 01.03.2021 was issued for a
meeting on 06.03.2021.
13.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his
reply raising objections with regard to the
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, alleging
that Respondent No.2 was working in a
managerial cadre and was not a 'workman'
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID
Act.
13.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. K. Basavaraj who was
working with the Management of M/s. JSW
Steel Limited., Bellary, as Jr. Engineer would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether Management of M/s.
JSW Steel Ltd., would prove that the
termination of his services from August 2020
is justified.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is
entitled to?
13.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/7/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
07.01.2022 and notice dated 21.03.2022, the
Petitioner is before this Court.
14. FACTS IN WP NO.101908/2022
14.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as
an Engineer - LO6 Garde with the Petitioner on
05.03.2012. Clause 11 of the appointment
order states that if Respondent No.2 remains
absent from duty without due permission for a
period exceeding 10 days, he would lose his
lien on employment.
14.2. The Petitioner claims that RespondentNo.2 was
continuously irregular in his duties and had last
attended work on 05.06.2020 and stopped
coming to work thereafter despite repeated
reminders from the Petitioner. As a last chance,
Respondent No. 2 vide letter 20.07.2020 was
informed that failing to report for duty on or
before 27.07.2020 would result in presuming
abandonment of his services to the company
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
and his further employment would thus stand
terminated. Respondent No.2 did not report to
work on the said date, and as per the terms
and conditions of the appointment order, the
Petitioner terminated him from service vide
memo dated 14.08.2020 without attaching any
stigma so as to safeguard his future.
14.3. Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
challenging his termination from service and a
notice dated 01.03.2021 was issued for a
meeting on 06.03.2021.
14.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his
reply raising objections with regard to the
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer alleging
that Respondent No.2 was working in a
managerial cadre and was not a 'workman'
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID
Act.
14.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. N. Devaraju who was
working with the Management of M/s. JSW
Steel Limited., Bellary, as Jr. Engineer would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether Management of M/s.
JSW Steel Ltd., would prove that the
termination of his services from 18th August
2020 is justified.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is
entitled to?
14.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/13/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
07.01.2022 and notice dated 21.03.2022, the
Petitioner is before this Court.
15. FACTS IN WP NO.101909/2022
15.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as
Assistant (Horticulture) - S2 Grade with the
Petitioner on 26.07.1996. Thereafter, he was
promoted as Deputy Manager vide promotion
order dated 31.10.2018 and is stated to have
tendered his resignation/early retirement for
personal reasons on 23.07.2020, which came to
be accepted by the Petitioner-employer on
30.09.2020.
15.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
26.10.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing necessary application.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
15.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, amount of Rs.25,33,344/- was
paid to Respondent No.2 on 18.11.2020. It is
after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
15.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his
reply raising objection with regard to the
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer alleging
that Respondent No.2 was working in a
managerial cadre and was not a 'workman'
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID
Act.
15.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. B. Vasantha Madhav who was
working with the Management of M/s. JSW Steel
Limited., Bellary, as Deputy Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would prove
that the Management of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
has obtained his resignation forcefully and
relieved him from service with effect from
01.08.2020 without paying any compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is entitled
to?
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
15.6. In pursuance of which, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/5/2022 and issued
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.01.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
16. FACTS IN WP NO.101911/2022
16.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as a
Junior Engineer - S3 Grade with the Petitioner
on 27.05.1999. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Deputy Manager - Operations vide promotion
order dated 29.04.2013 and is stated to have
tendered his resignation for personal reasons
on 22.09.2020, which came to be accepted by
the Petitioner-employer on 22.09.2020.
16.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
27.10.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing a necessary application.
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
16.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, amount of Rs.11,89,061/- was
paid to Respondent No.2 on 17.11.2020. It is
after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
16.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his reply
raising objection with regard to the jurisdiction
and maintainability of the proceedings before
the Deputy Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer alleging that Respondent
No.2 was working in a managerial cadre and
was not a 'workman' within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the ID Act .
16.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. Noor Ahmed who was working
with the Management of M/s. JSW Steel
Limited., Bellary, as Deputy Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would prove
that the Management of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
has obtained his resignation forcefully and
relieved him from service with effect from
30.09.2020 without paying any compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is entitled
to?
16.6. In pursuance of which, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/01/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.03.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
17. FACTS IN WP NO.101912/2022
17.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as
Trainee - Steno Assistant with the Petitioner on
05.01.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Assistant Manager vide promotion order dated
22.05.2012, and is stated to have tendered his
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
resignation for personal reasons on 31.07.2020,
which came to be accepted by the Petitioner-
employer on 01.08.2020.
17.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
26.10.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing a necessary application.
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
17.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, amount of Rs.16,01,296/- was
paid to Respondent No.2 on 15.11.2020. It is
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
17.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his reply
raising objection with regard to the jurisdiction
and maintainability of the proceedings before
the Deputy Labour Commissioner and
Conciliation Officer alleging that Respondent
No.2 was working in a managerial cadre and
was not a 'workman' within the meaning of
Section 2(s) of the ID Act .
17.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. A.G. Joshi who was working
with the Management of M/s. JSW Steel
Limited., Bellary, as Assistant Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would prove
that the Management of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
has obtained his resignation forcefully and
relieved him from service with effect from
01.08.2020 without paying any compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is entitled
to?
17.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/6/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.03.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
18. FACTS IN WP NO.101915/2022
18.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as a
Diploma Engineer Trainee - L3T Grade with the
Petitioner on 19.04.2007. Thereafter, he was
promoted as Assistant Manager vide promotion
order dated 30.11.2019 and is stated to have
tendered his resignation for personal reasons
on 23.07.2020, which came to be accepted by
the Petitioner-employer on 04.09.2020.
18.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by a cheque on
26.10.2020. It is further claimed that
Respondent No.2 had applied for clearing PF
accumulation by filing necessary application.
Respondent No.2 had also filed a self-
declaration with regard to his non-employment
and claiming pension under the EPF Pension
Scheme, 1995.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
18.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, the amount of Rs.04,41,311/-
was paid to Respondent No.2 on 15.11.2020. It
is after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
18.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his
reply raising objection with regard to the
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer alleging
that Respondent No.2 was working in a
managerial cadre and was not a 'workman'
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID
Act .
18.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. Sudarshan S Pai who was
working with the Management of M/s. JSW Steel
Limited., Bellary, as Assistant Manager would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would prove
that the Management of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
has obtained his resignation forcefully and
relieved him from service with effect from
04.09.2020 without paying any compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is entitled
to?
18.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/9/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.03.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
19. FACTS IN WP NO.101920/2022
19.1. Respondent No.2 is stated to be appointed as a
'Trainee - S2 Grade' with the Petitioner on
27.04.1998. Thereafter, he was promoted as
Junior Manager vide promotion order dated
12.02.2011 and is stated to have tendered his
resignation for personal reasons on 29.07.2020,
which came to be accepted by the Petitioner-
employer on 31.07.2020.
19.2. The Petitioner claims that Respondent No.2 had
also made necessary applications for payment
of gratuity, which was so paid by an Insurance
Company Voucher on 17.11.2020. It is further
claimed that Respondent No.2 had applied for
clearing PF accumulation by filing a necessary
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
application. Respondent No.2 had also filed a
self-declaration with regard to his non-
employment and claiming pension under the
EPF Pension Scheme, 1995.
19.3. Respondent No.2 accepted all the deductions to
be correct and further had undertaken that if
any of the information is found to be false, the
amount would be returned in full along with
interest. Hence, amount of Rs.15,44,923/- was
paid to Respondent No.2 on 27.11.2020. It is
after more than 9 months of accepting the
resignation and settling of all service benefits
that Respondent No.2 filed a petition before the
Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi,
alleging that his resignation had been obtained
by force.
19.4. The Petitioner-employer had submitted his
reply raising objection with regard to the
jurisdiction and maintainability of the
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
proceedings before the Deputy Labour
Commissioner and Conciliation Officer alleging
that Respondent No.2 was working in a
managerial cadre and was not a 'workman'
within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID
Act .
19.5. Respondent No.1-Government of Karnataka, by
its order of reference dated 07.01.2022,
referred the matter to the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellary, for adjudication on the
following points of dispute:
a) Whether Shri. Raghunath P.S. Ghorpade who
was working with the Management of M/s. JSW
Steel Limited., Bellary, as Junior Engineer would
prove that he was a "workman" within the
meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
b) If proved, whether the Applicant would prove
that the Management of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.,
has obtained his resignation forcefully and
relieved him from service with effect from
09.09.2020 without paying any compensation.
c) If not, to what relief the Applicant is entitled
to?
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
19.6. In pursuance of this, the Principal District and
Session Judge, Bellari, registered the dispute as
Application No. 10(1)(c)/2/2022 and issued a
summons to the Petitioner's manager to appear
on 21.03.2022. It is challenging the order dated
07.01.2022 and the notice dated 21.03.2022,
the Petitioner is before this Court.
20. Sri. K.S. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner would submit that:
20.1. The submission of Sri. K.S. Subramanya,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is
that without a prima-facie opinion being
expressed and a conclusion arrived at as to
whether there is an industrial dispute in
existence or is apprehended, no such reference
could be made.
20.2. Respondent No.2 in all the above matters
having tendered a resignation, which was
- 45 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
accepted by the employer, the workman having
filed all the necessary applications for disbursal
of the amount and benefits, the amounts
having been received by Respondent No.2,
there being no reason for refund of money
received let alone a refund of the monies. The
question of Respondent No.2 in each of the
above matters, claiming that there is an
industrial dispute, would not arise.
20.3. On a resignation being submitted and accepted
by the employer, the relationship between the
employer and the employee ceases to exist,
and on such a resignation, the question of any
industrial dispute having arisen or apprehended
to arise would not arise.
20.4. The resignation having been tendered in the
usual course of business, an application having
been filed to that effect, amounts having been
disbursed, any questions of a dispute being
- 46 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
raised on voluntary acts of the parties would
thus not arise.
20.5. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Management of
Charak Bhandar v. Presiding Officer1, more
particularly Para No.6 of the said judgment and
operative portion, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference.
6. In support of the second contention,
before the Labour Court, the Petitioner had
relied on the judgment of this Court in The
Association of the Physically
Handicapped v. The State of Mysore [ W.P.
4222 of 1974 Dated 3-3-1975.] . In the said
case the first point referred for adjudication
was, whether the Association of the
Physically Handicapped was an industry or
not. The validity of the said order was
questioned before this Court on the ground
that unless the Government formed an
opinion that the said association was an
industry without which there could be no
industrial dispute, the Government had no
competence under Section 10(1) of the Act
to make a reference, as formation of an
opinion that an industrial dispute existed,
was a condition precedent to make a
reference in exercise of the power under
Section 10(1) of the Act. The said contention
was accepted by this Court and it was held
that even though the Government
notification began by saying that in its
1 ILR 1985 KAR 248
- 47 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
opinion an industrial dispute existed, the first
point of reference itself contradicted the said
statement, for the question as to whether
the Association was an industry or not, was
not at all decided by the Government and
was left to be decided by the Labour Court.
The ratio of the said judgment fully applies to
the present case also, but nevertheless the
Labour Court lightly brushed aside the
judgment of this Court and held that the first
point was rightly referred by the Government
stating that the first point referred in that
case was whether the Association of the
Physically Handicapped was an industry,
whereas the question referred in this case
was whether Respondents 2 and 3 were
workmen. The existence of an 'industry' and
workmen' both are essential to bring into an
existence an industrial dispute. If the State
Government cannot refer the question as to
whether a particular establishment was an
industry for industrial adjudication, equally
the Government cannot also refer the
question as to whether the persons
concerned were workmen or not. It may be
that in a given case if substantial number of
workmen or a Trade Union raises an
industrial dispute, concerning the dismissal
from service of one or more employees of an
industry and the employer raises an
objection that dismissed employees were not
'workmen' the Government could refer the
question as to whether the dismissed
employees were workmen, for in such a case
notwithstanding the fact that the dismissed
employees are not workmen, the dispute still
would be between the employer and the
Trade Union or substantial number of
workmen. But that is not the position here.
The dispute was raised by two individuals, in
view of Section 2-A and the Government
could refer the dispute, if only it was of the
view that they were workmen. Therefore, on
this ground alone the impugned order of
reference is liable to be set aside.
- 48 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
ORDER
The Writ Petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 2-7-1977 is set aside. The State Government shall make a fresh reference if it considered that Respondents 2 and 3 are workmen a defined under Section 2(a) of the Act and that it is the appropriate Government to make the reference, but it shall do so only after giving opportunity to the Petitioner.
20.6. By relying upon the decision in Charak Bhandar's case (supra), he submits that the existence of an 'industry' and 'workman' are essential aspects to bring into existence an industrial dispute. The Appropriate Government cannot refer the question as to whether a particular establishment was an industry for industrial adjudication, similarly following suit, the Appropriate Government also cannot refer the question as to whether the persons concerned were workmen or not.
20.7. He refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Engineering
- 49 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Industries Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Ors2, more particularly para nos. 19, 25 and 30 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
19. The High Court came to the conclusion that the settlement arrived at in conciliation proceedings was binding on the workmen and one of the clauses of the settlement kept the service conditions intact and another clause did not permit raising of any demand throwing an additional financial burden on IOCL, it was not permissible to modify the certified Standing Order by an amendment as that would alter the service conditions and increase the financial burden on the Management. The High Court, therefore, quashed the orders amending the Standing Orders. Aggrieved, the Union approached this Court. This Court analysed the provisions of Sections 2(p), 18(1) and 18(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it also refers to the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and held as under: (SCC pp. 11-12, para 8) "It may be seen on a plain reading of sub-
sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 that settlements are divided into two categories, namely, (i) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings and (ii) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has extended application since it is 2 AIR 2000 SC 469
- 50 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. To that extent it departs from the ordinary law of contract. The object obviously is to uphold the sanctity of settlements reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. There is an underlying assumption that a settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable and can, therefore, safely be made binding not only on the workmen belonging to the union signing the settlement but also on others. That is why a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority." This Court upheld the judgment of the High Court.
25. It will be thus seen that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial
- 51 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal (sic dispute) which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended the appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference. A settlement of dispute between the parties themselves is to be preferred, where it could be arrived at, to industrial adjudication, as the settlement is likely to lead to more lasting peace than an award. Settlement is arrived at by the free will of the parties and is a pointer to there being goodwill between them. When there is a dispute that the settlement is not bona fide in nature or that it has been arrived at on account of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of facts or even corruption and other inducements it could be the subject- matter of yet another industrial dispute which an appropriate Government may refer for adjudication after examining the allegations as there is an underlying assumption that the settlement reached with the help of the Conciliation Officer must be fair and reasonable. A settlement which is sought to be impugned has to be scanned and scrutinised. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18 divide settlements into two categories, namely, (1) those arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings, and (2) those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has a limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but the settlement belonging to the second category has an extended application since it is binding on all the parties to the industrial disputes, to all others who were summoned to appear in the
- 52 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognised majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. The recognised union having the majority of members is expected to protect the legitimate interest of the labour and enter into a settlement in the best interest of the labour. This is with the object to uphold the sanctity of settlement reached with the active assistance of the Conciliation Officer and to discourage an individual employee or a minority union from scuttling the settlement. When a settlement is arrived at during the conciliation proceedings it is binding on the members of the Workers' Union as laid down by Section 18(3)(d) of the Act. It would ipso facto bind all the existing workmen who are all parties to the industrial dispute and who may not be members of unions that are signatories to such settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act. The Act is based on the principle of collective bargaining for resolving industrial disputes and for maintaining industrial peace. "This principle of industrial democracy is the bedrock of the Act," as pointed out in the case of P. Virudhachalam v. Lotus Mills [(1998) 1 SCC 650 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 342] . In all these negotiations based on collective bargaining the individual workman necessarily recedes to the background. Settlements will encompass all the disputes existing at the time of the settlement except those specifically left out.
- 53 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
30. When notice was issued on the special leave petition proceedings on the reference were stayed. Earlier also during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, which led to the impugned judgment, proceedings had been stayed. There has not been any progress before the Industrial Tribunal and all these years have passed. During the course of hearing we have been told that there have been even two more settlements and also that the President of the Workers' Union is now himself the President of the Labour Union. Even otherwise it would be futile to allow the reference to continue after the lapse of all these years. This is apart from the fact that in our view reference in itself was bad as the tripartite settlement did bind the members of the Workers' Union as well.
20.8. By referring to the decision in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd, he submits that when a settlement is arrived at in conciliation proceedings, the same is binding on the workman, which is not permissible to be modified. An application for resignation having been made and the same having been accepted by the employer, there cannot be a dispute raised in relation to such voluntary resignation.
- 54 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.9. It is in that background that he submits that the Industrial Tribunal being a creation of a statute, gets jurisdiction on the basis of a reference made by the Appropriate Government. The Appropriate Government cannot refer the matter where there is a settlement already arrived at, for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal.
20.10. He relies upon the decision in the case of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors3, more particularly para no. 13 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"Mr Bhat, learned Counsel for the second Respondent, has submitted that this Court should not interfere with the order of the Central Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the appellant can ventilate its grievances before the Industrial Tribunal itself and if the decision of the Tribunal goes against the appellant, the same may be challenged in accordance with law. According to learned counsel the writ petition is premature as the appellant has got a remedy before the Tribunal to show 3 AIR 2006 SC 296
- 55 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS that the reference is either bad in law or is uncalled for. We are unable to accept the submission made. It is true that normally a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained against an order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the Act, as the parties would get opportunity to lead evidence before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and to show that the claim made is either unfounded or there was no occasion for making a reference. However, this is not a case where the infirmity in the reference can be shown only after evidence has been adduced. In the present case the futility of the reference made by the Central Government can be demonstrated from a bare reading of the terms of the reference and the admitted facts. In such circumstances, the validity of the reference made by the Central Government can be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as no evidence is required to be considered for examining the issue raised."
20.11. By referring to the decision in ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd's case (supra), he submits that though normally the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not entertain a challenge to an order of the appropriate Government making a reference under Section 10 of the ID Act. In the
- 56 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS event of it being shown that such reference is either unfounded and or there was no occasion for making a reference, and there will be futility in making a reference established/demonstrated from a bare reading of the terms of reference and the admitted facts, the writ Court is required to examine the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
20.12. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Indian Tea Association vs. Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors4,, more particularly para no. 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
8. We extract below the order of the State Government, which is a speaking one:
"I am directed to say that in terms of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 24-11-1997 in Writ Petition No. 22878 (W) of 1997 in the case of Ajit Kumar Barat v. State of W.B. [ WP No. 22878 (W) of 1997 order dated 24- 4 AIR 2000 SC 915
- 57 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 11-1997 (HC)] Government has examined the matter in detail.
After examination, it reveals that you were first appointed as Assistant Secretary in Indian Tea Association and subsequently promoted to the post of Joint Secretary. Besides the basic pay you are given child allowance, house rent subsidy, furnishing allowance, house maintenance allowance, transport subsidy, reimbursement of fuel and electricity charges, entertainment expenses, reimbursement of servant's wages, monthly club subscription, leave travel allowance and reimbursement of hospitality expenses. Your duties also included power of sanction of expenses on behalf of Indian Tea Association.
So your pay and perquisites and the status enjoyed by you in the organisation and also the power of sanction of expenses suggest that you were a part of the management. Hence you cannot be treated as a workman within the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Government, therefore, regrets its inability to refer your dispute to any Industrial Tribunal/Court under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
20.13. By relying on the Secretary, Indian Tea Association's case (supra), he submits that in terms of Section 2-A of the ID Act for an industrial dispute to exist, it would include a dispute between the workmen and the
- 58 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS management, the Government before making the reference must arrive at a satisfaction about the existence of the industrial dispute. If such subjective satisfaction is not made out in the reference order, the order of reference is required to be quashed.
20.14. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of U.P. and Ors5, more particularly para no. 5 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
"The jurisdiction of the Government under the scheme of the Act to satisfy itself as to the existence of the dispute has been the subject-matter of a catena of judgments of this Court, some of which have been referred to in SAIL v. Union of India [SAIL v. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 233 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 630] , wherein it has been held at para 18, which reads as follows: (SCC p. 241) "18. Before adverting to the questions raised before us, we may at this juncture notice the contention of Mr V.N. Raghupathy that whereas in the reference only 26 workmen were made parties, more than 600 workmen were made parties in the writ petition and, thus, only because before the appropriate 5 AIR 2016 SC 551
- 59 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Government a demand was raised by some of the workmen contending that they were workmen of the contractors, an industrial dispute could be raised that the contract was a sham one and in truth and substance the workmen were employed by the management."
20.15. By relying upon the judgment in Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) he submits that it is for the Government to satisfy itself as to the existence of a dispute. Even a writ Court cannot direct by mandamus a reference of a matter to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Even if such an order is passed by a writ Court, the subjective satisfaction of the existence of an industrial dispute is to be arrived at by the appropriate Government before such Tribunals. 20.16. On the basis of all the above, he submits that the State has acted in a mechanical fashion. Merely because a dispute was raised by the employee, the appropriate Government has referred the matter for adjudication by framing
- 60 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS the above points of reference. There is no satisfaction as to whether there is an industrial dispute in existence or not. In the absence of the same, the reference made by the appropriate Government is bad in law, requiring this Court to interfere and quash such reference.
20.17. The submission of Sri. K.S. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that before a reference could be made by the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government ought to have come to a conclusion and or at least a prima-facie opinion as to whether the persons concerned is/are 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act i.e., to say without the appropriate Government having come to a prima-facie opinion that the person is a workman, no reference could be made. On that basis, he
- 61 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS submits that without such a decision invoking the jurisdiction of the appropriate Government for reference as to whether the person is a workman is bad in law.
20.18. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A. Sundarambal v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Ors6, more particularly para no. 8 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
8. In order to be a workman, a person should be one who satisfies the following conditions:
(i) he should be a person employed in an industry for hire or reward; (ii) he should be engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work; and (iii) he should not be a person falling under any of the four clauses, i.e. (i) to (iv) mentioned in the definition of "workman" in Section 2(s) of the Act. The definition also provides that a workman employed in an industry to do any skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work for hire or reward includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, an industrial dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.
6 AIR 1988 SC 1700
- 62 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.19. By relying on A. Sundarambal's case (supra), he submits that to be a workman, the above requirements are to be satisfied. Without such satisfaction, a person cannot be said to be a workman.
20.20. He relies upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Union of India (UOI) and Ors7, more particularly para nos. 35, 36 and 37 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
35. It is, thus, evident that by taking recourse to an amendment made in the pleading, the party cannot be permitted to go beyond his admission. The principle would be applied in an industrial adjudication having regard to the nature of the reference made by the appropriate Government as also in view of the fact that an industrial adjudicator derives his jurisdiction from the reference only.
36. There is another aspect of the matter which should also not be lost sight of. For the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 10 of the 1970 Act, the appropriate Government is required to apply its mind. Its 7 AIR 2006 SC 3229
- 63 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS order may be an administrative one but the same would not be beyond the pale of judicial review. It must, therefore, apply its mind before making a reference on the basis of the materials placed before it by the workmen and/or management, as the case may be. While doing so, it may be inappropriate for the same authority on the basis of the materials that a notification under Section 10(1)(d) of the 1947 Act be issued, although it stands judicially determined that the workmen were employed by the contractor. The State exercises administrative power both in relation to abolition of contract labour in terms of Section 10 of the 1970 Act as also in relation to making a reference for industrial adjudication to a Labour Court or a Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the 1947 Act. While issuing a notification under the 1970 Act, the State would have to proceed on the basis that the principal employer had appointed contractors and such appointments are valid in law, but while referring a dispute for industrial adjudication, validity of appointment of the contractor would itself be an issue as the State must prima facie satisfy itself that there exists a dispute as to whether the workmen are in fact not employed by the contractor but by the management. We are, therefore, with respect, unable to agree with the opinion of the High Court.
37. We would, however, hasten to add that this judgment shall not come in the way of the appropriate Government to apply its mind for the purpose of issuance of a notification under Section 10 of the 1970 Act.
20.21. Relying on Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case (supra), he submits that before making a
- 64 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS reference, the government would have to come to a conclusion that the person seeking a reference is a workman.
20.22. He refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Everestee v. District Labour Officer8, more particularly para no. 9 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is beneficial to extract Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act:
"(s) "Workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment had led to that dispute, but does not include any such person;
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957; or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or 8 ILR 1999 (3) Kerala 142
- 65 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature." The definition of 'Workman' in Section 2(s) in connection with persons employed in an industry falls in three parts. The first part of the definition gives the statutory meaning of workman. The second part is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes. By this part of the definition, persons who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an industrial dispute; or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to an industrial dispute. This part specifically excludes the categories of the persons specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 2(s). The third part connotes that even if a person satisfied the requirements of any of the first two parts, if he falls in any of the four categories in the third part, he shall be excluded from the definition of 'workman'. In our opinion, the appellant, having voluntarily tendered his resignation pursuant to a scheme for voluntary retirement, the resignation having been accepted by the management and all the benefits arising out of such resignation has been paid by the management and received by the appellant, he cannot be treated as a 'workman' coming under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As already noticed, the definition only includes persons who are presently employed, or who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched from the service of the employer. In fact, dismissal, discharge or retrenchment is an act of the employer, whereas terminating the contract of service by way of
- 66 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS resignation By the workman is his own act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the appellant is misconceived and beyond the scope of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A perusal of the petition submitted by the appellant before the Labour Officer and also the Original Petition filed before this Court reveals that the appellant had accepted the benefits offered to him in pursuance of the Voluntary Retirement Package announced by the management and on being satisfied about the calculation and the quantum thereof, chose to tender his resignation and thereafter, on diverse dates, received benefits confirming each time that the management had fully and finally settled the accounts, thereby severing the employer-employee relationship once and for all. Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the benefits due to the appellant was not properly quantified and paid, and therefore, he would be entitled to maintain a petition before the Labour Officer. As already discussed and decided, the only remedy available to the appellant is to approach the management and not to make a petition before the Labour Officer, who has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Counsel for the appellant also referred to the payments made to some others who were also workmen in the skilled category. If there is any anomaly in regard to the payments made to the appellant and the other workmen, it is for the appellant to bring the same to the notice of the management by way of a fresh representation. If such a representation is filed within one month from today, the management is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Learned counsel for the management submitted that though the matter is concluded between parties the management is willing to consider the representation, if any made by the appellant, as per the directions now issued by this Court.
- 67 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.23. By relying on Everestee's case, he submits that once a workman has tendered his resignation in pursuance of a scheme for voluntary retirement and such resignation has been accepted by the management. Such a person cannot be treated as a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act.
20.24. In the present case, he submits that most of the persons have tendered their resignation voluntarily and have also received the concerned benefits by submitting the necessary applications. Having received those monies, not refunded the monies, the acceptance of their resignation being complete, they cannot now be treated as workmen post their retirement/resignation, which puts to rest the clear severance of an employer-employee relationship.
- 68 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.25. In two of the cases where the persons claim that they had resigned in pursuance of an early retirement scheme, there is no such scheme that was propounded by the employer. Hence, the mere usage of the term - 'early retirement', would not automatically convert it into a voluntary retirement scheme. Early retirement was a claim made by those persons who resigned from their respective posts/positions and as such it would not widen the scope of a resignation to a voluntary retirement scheme. This being the case, the contentions of those persons having retired cannot be accepted. 20.26. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of The Karnataka Lingayat Education, Society and Ors. v. Siddappa G. Namba and Ors9, more particularly Para nos. 11 and 22 9 ILR 2017 Kar 5139
- 69 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. Section 2(s) of the Act is also quoted below:
"2(s) Workman.-- "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person--
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
22. Had it been so brought to the notice of the Labour Court, perhaps the things would have been different. Be that as it may. Irrespective of the same, even the question of interpretation and applicability of Rule 5 for determining the claim of the Respondents could not have been
- 70 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS gone into by the Labour Court while deciding the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act. The retired or ex-employees could not at all invoke Section 33C(2) of the Act, as they were outside the scope of definition of "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, which envisages only workman who is working in presentia with the Employer-Industry."
20.27. By relying on Siddappa G. Namba's case (supra), he submits that a retired employee/workman is not a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, and therefore, no reference could be made in respect thereto. 20.28. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gadigayya and Ors. v. K.L.E. Society and Ors10, more particularly para no. 11 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11. In the instant case, the appellants claimed difference of Dearness Allowance, Encashment of Earned Leave, etc. from the Respondent-KLE Society, whereas the Respondent-KLE Society has specifically denied and it further stated that it had no liability to pay that difference on par with the Government employees. When such being the case, the application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is not maintainable. The 10 2018 (III) CLR 755
- 71 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS application under Section 33C(2) of the Act is maintainable, only when there is a determined amount and when such amount is denied by the employer. Further, the appellants are not workmen within the definition of "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act. The appellants had retired from the service of the Respondent- KLE Society on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2000 and 30.04.2002 respectively. Subsequently, in the year 2005, the applications under Section 33C(2) of the Act were filed before the Labour Court. The definition of "Workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act would not include a retired employee/workman. Therefore, on this ground also, the application filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable before the Labour Court.
20.29. By relying on Gadigayya's case (supra), he submits that the definition and scope of a workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, would not include a retired employee/workman. 20.30. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal and Others11, more particularly para nos. 22 and 23 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
11 2024 SCC OnLine SC 647
- 72 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS "22. This Court in North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar, (2003) 5 SCC 455 has held that resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines governing the resignation do not mandate such acceptance of resignation is to be communicated. In the North Zone (supra) case, the employee who was a temporary Accountant tendered his resignation from the post held by him on 18.11.1988. With effect from the said date, the resignation was accepted by the Director on the very same day with the endorsement "Accepted, hand over charge". The employee vide Telegram on 21.11.1988 withdrew his resignation stating that the same was obtained by pressure. He was communicated vide letter dated 18.11.1988 regarding acceptance of his resignation. The High Court allowed the writ petition on two grounds; (i) the acceptance of resignation was not communicated till the withdrawal and (ii) the employee was permitted to attend the duty even after acceptance of resignation. Setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court held that non- communication of the acceptance does not make the resignation inoperative provided, there is, in fact, an acceptance before the withdrawal. It is also held that it is not open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority.
23. As noticed by us above, Section 7 of the MEPS Act and Rule 40 of the Rules does not impose any guidelines for acceptance of the resignation upon the management. Hence, the position of law laid down by this Court in North
- 73 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Zone (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the contention raised by the appellant about withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance does not hold water." 20.31. By referring to Shriram Manohar Bande's case, he submits that resignation would be effective on its acceptance. Any withdrawal of the resignation post the acceptance, would not enure to the benefit of the employee/workman. In the present case, the withdrawal of the resignation has happened subsequently. 20.32. He submits that a resignation once submitted would be effective upon its acceptance. In the present case, the resignation having been accepted, the persons not having worked thereafter, it is only after 14 months that a reference was sought for raising a dispute. Thus, once resignation is accepted any scope of withdrawal thereof would not arise.
- 74 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.33. He relies upon the Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Turbine Limited vs. Government of Karnataka and Ors12, more particularly Para Nos.21, 22 and 23 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
21. The Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others vs. Vikram Cement and others9 has held at paragraph Nos.89 and 91 as under:
"89. From the above cases, it clearly transpires that powers under Articles 226 and 227 are discretionary and equitable and are required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice. While granting relief in favour of the applicant, the Court must take into account balancing interests and equities. It can mould relief considering the facts of the case. It can pass an appropriate order which justice may demand and equities may project. As observed by this Court in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana, Courts of equity should go much further both to give and refuse relief in furtherance of public interest. Granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.
xxx 12 2024(1) LLN 772 (Kar)
- 75 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
91. Even otherwise, according to the workmen, they were compelled to accept the amount and they received such amount under coercion and duress. In our considered opinion, they cannot retain the benefit if they want to prosecute Claim Petitions instituted by them with the Labour Court. Hence, the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as to refund of amount cannot be termed unjust, inequitable or improper. Hence, even if it is held that a 'technical' contention raised by the workmen has some force, this Court which again exercises discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, will not interfere with a direction which is in consonance with the doctrine of equity. It has been rightly said that a person "who seeks equity must do equity". Here the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the Company, but they do not want to part with the benefit they have received towards retirement and severance of relationship of master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. In our judgment, therefore, the final direction issued by the Division Bench needs no interference, particularly when the Company has also approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution."
22. "The person who seeks equity must do equity" and the workmen claim benefits as workmen of the company, but they do not want to part with the benefits they have received towards retirement and the severance of the relationship between master and servant. It simply cannot be permitted. The Respondent herein having failed to deposit the settlement amount, initiation of proceedings and
- 76 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS adjudication by the Respondent is not justifiable.
23. In the instant case, neither the dispute is in existence nor is the dispute apprehended since Respondent Nos.2 to 52 have admitted that they have opted for voluntary retirement from service and also the benefits received under the scheme. This being the position, this Court is of the considered view that the Government ought to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction as to whether a prima-facie dispute is in existence or is apprehended from the material on record, it is evidently clear that the appropriate Government has mechanically referred the matter without discharging its obligation as required under law and a serious error of law has been committed by the appropriate authority, which is apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the order of the reference made by the Government deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. Impugned order dated 22.06.2022 in No.LD- IDM/370/2022/LD.DO.6LS at Annexure-R is hereby quashed.
20.34. By relying on Triveni Turbine Limited case, he submits that if at all the employees/workmen wanted to raise a dispute.
The minimum that was required to be done by
- 77 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS the employees/workmen was to deposit the amounts received by the employees/workmen and thereafter, raise such a dispute. The employee having received the benefits towards the retirement and severance, a workmen/employee cannot be permitted to retain the benefit and raise a dispute. This aspect has not been considered by the appropriate Government. Lakhs of rupees have been paid to the employees/workmen who have resigned and continue to retain the same. The appropriate Government ought not to have referred the matter for adjudication. 20.35. He submits that while considering a proceeding under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, a writ Court would be required to balance the interest and equities and while doing so, mould the necessary relief considering the facts
- 78 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS of the case. The workmen having approached the appropriate Government for reference of the dispute, they having received large sums of money through normal bank transfers and having acknowledged receipt of the said monies, have not even offered to refund those monies let alone refund the same , nor have they deposited those monies before the appropriate Government or before this Court. 20.36. Thus, he submits that one who seeks equity must do equity. The Respondents not having parted or wanting to part with the benefits they have received towards retirement/resignation and the subsequent severance of the relationship between the master and servant, initiation of proceedings and or adjudication by the appropriate government is not permissible.
- 79 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 20.37. He submits that this aspect though covered under point No.2, the appropriate Government has not taken into account the status of the alleged workmen in as much as their designation and their roles and responsibilities not being considered.
20.38. In this regard, he has submitted a table to contend that if the designation and the salary had been taken into account, those persons could not be said to be workmen and, therefore, reference could not be made. The table is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Sl. Writ Petition Name Date of Amount Date of Remarks Settled Reference/ No. No. Separation Nature of dispute
1. 106038/2023 Srinivasa Rao 30.9.2020 Gratuity of 5.6.2023 a) Declared in the JSW Energy Rs.691449/- composite claim of Manager (Resignation) Paid on a) Whether the PF that he has left (Operation 21.9.2020 Second the organization.
service) 6.8.2020 Annexure-C Respondent (Annexure-D page Page 28 proves that he 30 to 34) Annexure-B is a "workman"
PF Accumu- within the
Acceptance meaning of
lation to the Section 2(s) of b) Clearance
30.9.2020 tune of I.D.Act. certificate obtained
Rs.1947378/ (Annexure-E Page
- 80 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Annexure-B1 -Was paid b) If so 42-45)
on whether the
Gross Salary 28.12.2020 Second
Respondent
At the time of Annexure-F proves that his
Page 53 resignation has
Resignation been obtained
by force w.e.f
Rs.201897/- 30.9.2020.
Annexure- Annexure-H
Page 56 to 57
Page 40
2. 101114/2022 M.Hari 28.7.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
(Asst. Manager) (Resignation) Rs.544892/- composite claim of
Annexure-D a) Whether the PF that he has left
Paid on Second the organization.
Page 28 Date Respondent (Annexure-G page
of Acceptance 27.10.2020 proves that he 32 to 33)
30.9.2020 Annexure-L is a "workman"
Annexure-E Page 40 within the
meaning of
PF Section 2(s) of b) Self declaration
Accumulatio I.D.Act. having left job
Page 29 Gross n to the tune (Annexure-H Page
Salary at the of 34)
time of Rs.1902524/
Resignation - b) If so
Rs.115533/- whether the
per month Paid on Second c) Declared in the
Respondent Gratuity Application
15.11.2020 proves that his form that he has
resignation has resigned the job.
Annexure-M been obtained
Page 43 by force w.e.f
1.8.2020.
(Annexure-J page
36)
3. 101907/2022 P.Somashekara 27.7.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
(Asst. Manager) (Resignation) Rs.357115/- composite claim of
Paid on PF that he has left
Annexure-C 26.10.2020 the organization.
Page 27 Annexure-J a) Whether the (Annexure-E page
Page 38 Second 31 to 32)
30.9.2020 Respondent
Acceptance PF proves that he
Accumulatio is a "workman"
Annexure-D n to the tune within the b) Declared Gratuity
Page 29 of meaning of Application Form
Rs.1229468/ Section 2(s) of that he has resigned
- I.D.Act. (Annexure-G Page
- 81 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Gross Salary Was paid on 35)
at the time of 31.12.2020
Resignation b) If so
Rs.85657/-per Annexure-K whether the
month Second
Page 42 Respondent
proves that his
resignation has
been obtained
by force w.e.f
28.7.2020.
Annexure-N
Page 47 to 48
4. 101908/2022 B. Vasantha 23.7.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
(Resignation) Rs.627508/- a) Whether the composite claim of
Madhava Annexure-D Paid on Second PF that he has left
26.10.2020 Respondent the organization.
Page 32
(Deputy proves that he (Annexure-G page
Manager) Annexure-L is a "workman" 37 to 38)
Page 46 within the
meaning of
30.9.2020 PF Section 2(s) of
Acceptance Accumulatio I.D.Act. b) Declared Gratuity
n to the tune Application Form
of b) If so that he has resigned
Rs.2533344/ whether the (Annexure-J Page
Annexure-E - Second 41 to 42
Page 34 Respondent
Was paid on proves that his
18.11.2020 resignation has
Annexure-N been obtained
Gross Salary by force w.e.f
Page 48 1.8.2020.
at the time of
Resignation
Rs.124655/-
per month Annexure-R
Page 54 to 55
5. 101911/2022 Noor Ahmed (Dy. 22.9.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
Manager- (Resignation) Rs.625033/- composite claim of
Operation) Annexure-C Paid on a) Whether the PF that he has left
26.10.2020 Second the organization.
Annexure-K Respondent (Annexure-F page
Page 35
proves that he 39 to 40)
is a "workman"
within the
PF meaning of
- 82 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
30.9.2020 Accumulatio Section 2(s) of b) Declared Gratuity
n to the tune I.D.Act. Application Form
Acceptance of that he has resigned
Rs.1189061/ b) If so (Annexure-H Page
- Was paid whether the 43)
on Second
Annexure-D 17.11.2020 Respondent
Annexure-M proves that his
Page 36 Page-51 resignation has
been obtained
Gross Salary by force w.e.f
30.9.2020.
at the time of
Resignation - Annexure-Q
Rs.139393/-
per month Page 59
6. 101912/2022 A.G.Joshi 31.7.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
(Asst.Manager) Rs.682050/- composite claim of
(Resignation) Paid on a) Whether the PF that he has left
Annexure-C 26.10.2020 Second the organization.
Annexure-K Respondent (Annexure-F page
Page 28 Page 41 proves that he 36 to 37)
is a "workman"
within the b) Declared Gratuity
meaning of Application Form
PF Accumu Section 2(s) of that he has resigned
30.9.2020 Lation to the I.D.Act. (Annexure-H Page
tune of Rs. 40)
Acceptance 1601296/-
Was paid on b) If so
26.10.2020 whether the
Annexure-D Annexure-M Second
Page 29 Page 44 Respondent
proves that his
resignation has
been obtained
Gross salary At by force w.e.f
the time of 1.8.2020
Resignation
Rs.116926/per
month Annexure-Q
Page 49-50
7. 101915/2022 Sudarshana 23.07.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
Rs.146175/- composite claim of
Sateesh Pai (Resignation) a) Whether the PF that he has left
Paid on Second the organization.
(Asst. Manager) Annexure-C Respondent (Annexure-F page
26.10.2020 proves that he 30 to 31)
is a "workman"
- 83 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
Page 26 Annexure-K within the
meaning of
Page 38 Section 2(s) of b) Declared Gratuity
I.D.Act. Application Form
4.9.2020 PF that he has resigned
Accumulatio b) If so (Annexure-H Page
Acceptance n to the tune whether the 33 to 34)
of Second
Rs.441311/- Respondent
Annexure-D
proves that his
Was paid on resignation has
Page 27
been obtained
15.11.2020 by force w.e.f.
Gross Salary
4.9.2020.
Annexure-M
At the time of Annexure-Q
Page 41
Resignation Page 47 to 48
Rs.61557/-
Annexure-E
Page 28
8. 101920/2022 Raghunath 29.7.2020 Gratuity of 7.1.2022 a) Declared in the
Rs.456415/- composite claim of
Ghorpade (Resignation) a) Whether the PF that he has left
Paid on Second the organization.
(Jr. Manager) Annexure-D Respondent (Annexure-G page
22.10.2020 proves that he 36 to 37)
Page 31
is a "workman"
Annexure-K within the
30.9.2020
meaning of
Page 42 Section 2(s) of b) Declared Gratuity
Acceptance
I.D.Act. Application Form
PF Accumu- that he has resigned
Annexure-E lation to the B) If so (Annexure-J Page
tune of whether the 40 to 41)
Page 33 Rs.1544923/ Second
- Respondent
Gross Salary proves that his
at the time of Was paid on resignation has
27.11.2020 been obtained
Resignation
Rs.93349/- by frce w.e.f
Annexure-N
9.9.2020.
Per month Page 46
Annexure-R
Annexure-F
Page 53 to 54
Page 34
- 84 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139
WP No. 106038 of 2023
C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022
WP No. 101905 of 2022
AND 6 OTHERS
20.39. Basing his submission on the said above-
extracted table, he submits that all of them are in the 'Managerial Cadre'. The designation itself indicates that they were Manager, Deputy Manager, Assistant Manager, Junior Manager or the like, and they were exercising supervisory powers being part of the management, drawing amounts ranging from Rs.61,557/- per month to Rs.2,01,897/- per month, and in this regard they cannot be termed to be workmen. 20.40. These aspects have not been looked into and or considered by the appropriate government and as such the appropriate government could not have referred cases of persons who were holding managerial cadre positions for adjudication under the workmen category by referring the same to the Industrial Tribunal. 20.41. He refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary Indian Tea Association v.
- 85 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Ajit Kumar Barat and Ors13, more particularly para nos. 12 and 13 thereof, which are reproduced here under for easy reference:
12. From the order of the State Government we find that while deciding the question whether Respondent 1 was a workman, it took into consideration the salary and allowances of Respondent 1 drawn at the relevant time and also the nature of work. Respondent 1 who has appeared in person did not dispute the salary and allowances etc. as indicated in the order of the Government but urged that his responsibilities were neither supervisory nor managerial in nature.
13. Mr Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to the circular dated 30-3-1994 issued by the appellant Association. This circular indicates the duties of Respondent 1 who was functioning as a Joint Secretary at the relevant time and we find that his duties were to deal with all legal matters and court proceedings, labour and land laws and publications (labour legislations labour welfare).
We also find from the records that Respondent 1 had power to sanction expenses incurred in litigation by the appellant. On the above materials on record the State Government rightly formed the opinion that Respondent 1 was not a workman.
20.42. Based on Ajit Kumar Bharat's case (supra), he submits that there was a responsibility 13 (2000) 3 SCC 93
- 86 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS vested in the appropriate Government to first come to a prima-facie conclusion that the person seeking for reference was actually a workman or not and not particularly belonging to the managerial cadre.
20.43. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North Zone Cultural Centre v. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar14, more particularly para no. 23 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
23. As noticed above, in the present case the resignation is dated 18-11-1988 and the same as found by us is accepted on 18-11-1988 itself.
The communication was on 1-12-1988 about 13 days thereafter which delay, in our opinion, is not an undue delay so as to make us draw an inference that there has been no acceptance of the resignation. Even the fact that in the meantime the Respondent either attended duty or signed the attendance register will be of no assistance to claim his resignation had not taken effect. Even otherwise the appellants have urged that because there was no responsible officer on the headquarters from 18.11.1988 after the Responden's resignation was accepted till 1.12.1988 and the Respondent took advantage of the same and marked his attendance and such attendance cannot be treated as lawful attendant in view of the 14 (2003) 5 SCC 455
- 87 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS acceptance of his resignation on 18.11.1988. we agree with the contention of the Appellant. 20.44. By relying upon Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar's case (supra), he submits that even if the alleged workman had attended duty and or signed the attendance register, the same cannot take away the effect of resignation. Such attendance cannot be said to be lawful. The acceptance of the resignation plainly puts an end to the relationship of the employer- employee.
20.45. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Secretary, Technical Education, U.P. and Ors v. Lalit Mohan Upadhyay and Ors15, more particularly para nos. 17 and 19 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
17. The general principle is that a government servant/or functionary who cannot, under the 15 (2007) 4 SCC 492
- 88 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS conditions of his service/or office, by his own unilateral act of tendering resignation, give up his service/or office normally the tender of resignation becomes effective and his service/or office tenure gets terminated when it is accepted by the competent authority. Thus, having regard to the letter of resignation (Annexure P-2), in the present case, there can be no doubt that Shri L.M. Upadhyay had in his letter dated 6-9-1993, indicated his unequivocal intention to resign in the clearest possible terms with immediate effect. The resignation was tendered by Shri Upadhyay voluntarily without any pressure or coercion from the Principal of the College as recorded by all the enquiry officers in their respective fact-finding reports and the counter-allegation of Shri Upadhyay against the Principal was found unwarranted and unfounded. The Principal in fact, had protected the reputation, saved the future career and unnecessary humiliation and embarrassment of Shri Upadhyay from the students, staff members and teachers of the College by permitting him to leave the College immediately before his letter of resignation was forwarded to the competent authority for its acceptance.
19. There cannot be any quarrel on the settled principle of law that an employee is entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance by the competent authority. We have gone through the decisions of this Court in J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(1990) 4 SCC 27 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 570 :
AIR 1990 SC 1808] and Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra [(1978) 2 SCC 301 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 303] relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1. He contended that before terminating the services of Respondent 1
- 89 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS on the basis of the complaint of the girl student and subsequent inquiry reports of the enquiry officers, it was obligatory upon the authority to hold regular departmental inquiry for the alleged misconduct and then to proceed against Respondent 1 in accordance with relevant rules. We are afraid to accept this submission. Admittedly, Shri L.M. Upadhyay was on probation and the authority was empowered to judge his fitness for work or suitability to the post of teacher at the time of acceptance of his resignation. In our view, the services of Shri L.M. Upadhyay during probation period could have been terminated by the authority, but the Principal and the Board of Governors had adopted a reasonable and fair mode of accepting his pending letter of resignation instead of terminating his services for unsuitability.
20.46. By relying on Lalit Mohan Upadhyay's case (supra), he submits that a resignation can be withdrawn before the acceptance by the competent authority/employer, the same cannot be withdrawn after acceptance. 20.47. On the basis of all the above submissions, he submits that the appropriate Government not having considered these matters in the proper perspective, the reference made is bad in law
- 90 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS and the aforesaid reliefs sought for are required to be granted.
21. Sri. Abhishek Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in WP No.106038/2023 submits that;
21.1. While forming an opinion under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the ID Act, what is required is only a formation of opinion that there is an industrial dispute. The Appropriate Government, having formulated such an opinion and has referred the matter for adjudication, the employer cannot dispute the same in the manner sought to be done. 21.2. It is submitted that the Petitioner has approached this Court at a premature stage and that it is for the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to answer the references made. While
- 91 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS doing so, all the contentions of the Petitioner would be answered by the Labour Court, more particularly:
(i) Whether there is an industrial dispute?,
(ii) Whether there is a relationship between the employer and workman?,
(iii) Whether Respondent No. 2 qualifies to be a workman and continues to be a workman?
21.3. All the above are disputed questions of facts, which could not be determined by the appropriate government and as such the reference has been made. It is for the industrial tribunal to now decide on the same. 21.4. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others16, more 16 (2002) 4 SCC 490
- 92 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS particularly para no. 31 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
31. Testing the case in hand on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the decided cases, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was clearly in error in confirming the order of rejection of reference passed by the State Government merely taking note of the designation of the post held by the Respondent i.e. Area Sales Executive. As noted earlier determination of this question depends on the types of duties assigned to or discharged by the employee and not merely on the designation of the post held by him. We do not find that the State Government or even the High Court has made any attempt to go into the different types of duties discharged by the appellant with a view to ascertain whether he came within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The State Government, as noted earlier, merely considered the designation of the post held by him, which is extraneous to the matters relevant for the purpose. From the appointment order dated 21-4-1983/22-4-1983 in which are enumerated certain duties which the appellant may be required to discharge it cannot be held therefrom that he did not come within the first portion of Section 2(s) of the Act. We are of the view that determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered. In such a matter the State Government could not arrogate on to itself the power to adjudicate on the question and hold that the Respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, thereby terminating the proceedings prematurely. Such a matter should be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court on the basis of the materials to be placed before it by the parties.
Thus the rejection order passed by the State Government is clearly erroneous and the order
- 93 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS passed by the High Court maintaining the same is unsustainable.
21.5. By relying on Sharad Kumar's case, he submits that the determination of questions requiring examination of factual matters, cannot be considered by the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government cannot arrogate to itself the power to adjudicate on the question. Those disputed questions ought to be referred to and left to the discretion of the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. He submits that the power to refer a dispute to an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court, is purely an administrative act and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function requiring reasons to be recorded.
21.6. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture
- 94 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Department and Another17, more particularly para nos. 42.1 to 42.6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
42.1. An industrial dispute has to be referred by the appropriate Government for adjudication and the workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly, except in those cases which are covered by Section 2-A of the Act. Reference is made under Section 10 of the Act in those cases where the appropriate Government forms an opinion that "any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended". The words "industrial dispute exists" are of paramount importance, unless there is an existence of an industrial dispute (or the dispute is apprehended or it is apprehended such a dispute may arise in near future), no reference is to be made. Thus, existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is a sine qua non for making the reference. No doubt, at the time of taking a decision whether a reference is to be made or not, the appropriate Government is not to go into the merits of the dispute. Making of reference is only an administrative function. At the same time, on the basis of material on record, satisfaction of the existence of the industrial dispute or the apprehension of an industrial dispute is necessary. Such existence/apprehension of industrial dispute, thus, becomes a condition precedent, though it will be only subjective satisfaction based on material on record. Since, we are not concerned with the satisfaction dealing with cases where there is apprehended industrial dispute, discussion that follows would confine to existence of an industrial dispute.
42.2. Dispute or difference arises when one party makes a demand and the other party 17 (2015) 15 SCC 1
- 95 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS rejects the same. It is held by this Court in a number of cases that before raising the industrial dispute making of demand is a necessary precondition. In such a scenario, if the services of a workman are terminated and he does not make the demand and/or raise the issue alleging wrongful termination immediately thereafter or within reasonable time and raises the same after considerable lapse of period, whether it can be said that industrial dispute still exists.
42.3. Since there is no period of limitation, it gives right to the workman to raise the dispute even belatedly. However, if the dispute is raised after a long period, it has to be seen as to whether such a dispute still exists? Thus, notwithstanding the fact that law of limitation does not apply, it is to be shown by the workman that there is a dispute in praesenti. For this purpose, he has to demonstrate that even if considerable period has lapsed and there are laches and delays, such delay has not resulted into making the industrial dispute cease to exist. Therefore, if the workman is able to give satisfactory explanation for these laches and delays and demonstrate that the circumstances disclose that issue is still alive, delay would not come in his way because of the reason that law of limitation has no application. On the other hand, if because of such delay dispute no longer remains alive and is to be treated as "dead", then it would be non-existent dispute which cannot be referred. 42.4. Take, for example, a case where the workman issues notice after his termination, questioning the termination and demanding reinstatement. He is able to show that there were discussions from time to time and the parties were trying to sort out the matter amicably. Or he is able to show that there were assurances by the Management to the effect
- 96 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS that he would be taken back in service and because of these reasons, he did not immediately raise the dispute by approaching the Labour Authorities seeking reference or did not invoke the remedy under Section 2-A of the Act. In such a scenario, it can be treated that the dispute was live and existing as the workman never abandoned his right. However, in this very example, even if the notice of demand was sent but it did not evoke any positive response or there was specific rejection by the Management of his demand contained in the notice and thereafter he sleeps over the matter for a number of years, it can be treated that he accepted the factum of his termination and rejection thereof by the Management and acquiesced into the said rejection. 42.5. Take another example. A workman approaches the civil court by filing a suit against his termination which was pending for a number of years and was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the civil court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the contract of personal service and does not grant any reinstatement. At that stage, when the suit is dismissed or he withdraws that suit and then involves the machinery under the Act, it can lead to the conclusion that the dispute is still alive as the workman had not accepted the termination but was agitating the same; albeit in a wrong forum.
42.6. In contrast, in those cases where there was no agitation by the workman against his termination and the dispute is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remain unexplained, it would be presumed that he had waived his right or acquiesced into the act of termination and, therefore, at the time when the dispute is raised it had become stale and was not an "existing dispute". In such circumstances, the appropriate
- 97 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Government can refuse to make reference. In the alternative, the Labour Court/Industrial Court can also hold that there is no "industrial dispute" within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and, therefore, no relief can be granted. 21.7. By relying on Prabhakar's case, his submission is that the jurisdiction of the reference court to adjudicate on an industrial dispute although flows from the statute, the same requires the appropriate government to grant such reference to the concerned body notwithstanding the merits of the matter. Further, albeit 'demand' being a pre-condition for dispute, there is no period of limitation that applies as regards when such a demand could be raised.
21.8. Insofar as Respondent No. 2 in WP No.106038/2023 is concerned, he submitted that Respondent No.2 had been forced to submit a resignation letter on 06.08.2020. This
- 98 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS resignation letter was withdrawn by Respondent No.2 vide his E-mail dated 08.08.2020 i.e., within two days from the date of forceful resignation.
21.9. In the said withdrawal, Respondent No.2 has categorically stated that he had received a sudden call from the HR section and asked to sign a document of resignation under pressure, succumbing to the same, he had signed the said document and therefore there is no wilful resignation on part of Respondent No.2. 21.10. The said withdrawal of resignation has been produced along with the memo dated 12.02.2025. He submits that the employer had resorted to the modus of accepting forced resignation letters to terminate the services of workmen during the Covid-19 pandemic period. 21.11. When there was a specific embargo on the employers not to terminate the services of
- 99 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS workmen, the employer has acted in a manner not befitting its stature, the employer was required to safeguard the interests of the employees/workmen, without doing so, the employer resorted to forcing people to resign to take undue advantage of the position held by the employer as against its workmen. 21.12. In so far as whether Respondent No.2 is a workman or not, he relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board18, more particularly para no. 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. No doubt, in deciding about the status of an employee, his designation alone cannot be said to be decisive and what really should go into consideration is the nature of his duties and the powers conferred upon as well as the functions assigned to him. Even if the whole undertaking be an industry, those who are not workmen by definition may not be benefited by the said status. It is the predominant nature of the 18 (2001) 7 SCC 394
- 100 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS services that will be the true and proper test. Operations of the Government which are pure and simpliciter administrative and of a governmental character or incidental thereto cannot be characterized to be "industrial" in nature, be they performed by a department of the Government or by a specially constituted statutory body to whom anyone or more of such functions are delegated or entrusted with. When, as in this case, as disclosed from Section 15 of the Act as also the provisions of the Scheme, the primary duties of an employee and the dominant purpose, aim and object of employment was to carry out only certain specific statutory duties in the matter of effective enforcement and implementation of the Welfare Scheme in order to ameliorate and rehabilitate a particular cross section of labour, and, if need be, on the basis of his own decision which calls for a high degree of discretion and exercise of power to prosecute the violator of the provisions of the Act, Rules and the provisions of the Scheme, we are unable to accord our approval to the claim made on behalf of the appellant that he can yet be assigned the status of a "workman", without doing violence to the language of Section 2(s) and the very purpose and object of the ID Act, 1947. That apart, even judging from the nature of powers and the manner of its exercise by an Inspector, appointed under the Act, in our view, the appellant cannot be considered to be engaged in doing any manual, unskilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work and the mere fact that in the course of performing his duties he had to also maintain, incidentally, records to evidence the duties performed by him, day to day, cannot result in the conversion of the post of "Inspector" into any one of those
- 101 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS nature noticed above, without which, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the decision in H.R. Adyanthaya case the appellant cannot fall within the definition of "workman". The powers of an Inspector and duties and obligations cast upon him as such are identical and akin to law enforcing agency or authority and also on a par with a prosecuting agency in the public law field.
21.13. By relying on Hussan Mithu Mhasvadkar's case (supra), he submits that while deciding whether a person is a workman or not, the designation is not important. It is the duties, which are discharged, which is important. According to him, Respondent No.2 did not exercise any supervisory functions and or managerial functions. The designation which has been provided by the employer, is only for promotional purposes and no other purposes at all.
21.14. Respondent No.2 satisfies the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Alternatively, he submits that this aspect would
- 102 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS have to be decided by the Court to which the matter is referred to, where evidence would be laid by both the parties. For now, the appropriate Government has come to a prima- facie finding that Respondent No.2 is a workman and as such, the same cannot be found fault with.
22. Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in the other matters would submit that;
22.1. What the Government was required to consider prima facie waswhether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended before reference of the dispute, and had come to a conclusion that there exists a prima facie dispute which requires adjudication.
22.2. His submission is that the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government to
- 103 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS refer the matter for adjudication cannot be called in question in the writ proceedings. A reference made is more in the nature of a show-cause, it is for the claimant/workman to establish the allegations and for the employer to counter it.
22.3. These aspects would be adjudicated by the Labour Court by applying the appropriate law. The appropriate Government cannot prejudge whether there is an industrial dispute or not, and whether there is an employer- employee/employer-workman relationship or not prior to reference of the matter to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. 22.4. If same were to be done, that would amount to usurpation of the powers of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, the appropriate Government only discharging administrative
- 104 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS powers could not exercise quasi-judicial or judicial powers to make such a determination. 22.5. He again reiterates that mere designation of a person as a 'manager' would not make such person a part of the managerial cadre nor would the salary be a decisive factor to decide the status of a workman.
22.6. His submission is that it would be for the employer to establish that Respondent No.2 in each of the above cases has discharged managerial functions and has exercised supervisory powers over any of his subordinates. These are all factual aspects which would have to be considered by the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court. 22.7. In all the cases, Respondent No.2-Engineers, did not exercise any managerial responsibility, but have been performing technical functions and or duties. Respondent No.2 in each of the
- 105 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS above matters, did not have the power to issue any charge sheet or punish his subordinates or the power to sanction leave or take any policy decisions. Therefore, he would not be a part of the management and he would not discharge a managerial function let alone be a part of the management.
22.8. In so far as the resignation is concerned, his submission is that many persons like Respondent No.2 were called by the Human Resources Department and forced to sign the resignation letter. The resignation was not given by Respondent No.2 out of their own volition, but instead were forced to do so. 22.9. All these resignations were taken during the Covid-19 period, after the lockdown was imposed and when the company's activities were closed. The employer wanting to reduce its financial burden and not comply with the
- 106 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS requirement of Section 2(s) of the ID Act, has forced its workmen to resign. These aspects could be established by Respondent No.2 during the course of trial. Many of these details had been furnished to the appropriate Government who having considered these issues and documents referred the matter for adjudication by formulating the points for adjudication.
22.10. A forcible resignation would not bring to an end the relationship between an employer- employee. These aspects are all disputed in nature. There is an industrial dispute, which is existing between the parties. When there is a relationship of employer-employee or Employer
-Workman, it would have to be decided by the concerned tribunal and the same cannot be pre-decided by the Appropriate Government.
- 107 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 22.11. He refers to a paper cutting dated 01.01.2020 of 'Vijayavaani' Daily Kannada newspaper indicating that the Petitioner was seeking to forcibly obtain resignation letters from its employees.
22.12. He then refers to a letter addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister by the 'JSW Suffered Employees Forum' dated 31.08.2020, where allegations have been placed by the forum as regards the actions of the Petitioner. He also refers to the letters dated 01.01.2020 and 04.12.2020 given by some of the workers to the Deputy Labour commissioner placing on record the highhanded actions taken by the employer.
22.13. He refers to a letter dated 06.02.2021 issued by JSW's ex-employees stating that JSW has taken forcible resignation from them and an appeal has been made to the Deputy Labour
- 108 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Commissioner to resolve the said issue. The said letter has also been marked to the Hon'ble Prime Minister, Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Labour Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman and Managing Director of the Petitioner herein. 22.14. He refers to the factual report dated 26.07.2021 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kalaburagi and a letter dated 31.07.2021 given to the Deputy Commissioner and he submits that these would also indicate the highhanded actions taken by the authorities. He submits that these facts being disputed, would have to be established during the course of trial and as such, reiterated that these could not be pre-decided by the appropriate Government at the stage of reference.
- 109 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 22.15. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Kumar vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others19, more particularly para nos. 23, 29 to 31 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
23. A similar question came up for consideration before a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burma Shell Management Staff Assn. wherein it was held, inter alia, that if a person is mainly doing supervisory work and incidentally or for a fraction of the time also does some clerical work, it would have to be held that he is employed in a supervisory capacity, and conversely, if the main work done is of clerical nature the mere fact that some supervisory duties are also carried out incidentally or as a small fraction of the work done by him will not convert his employment as a clerk into one in supervisory capacity. This Court, considering several classes of employees including Sales Engineering Representative and District Sales Representative, held on the materials placed before the Industrial Tribunal that both these classes of employees do not come within the meaning of the expression "workman" in Section 2(s). It is relevant to note here that this Court was considering the validity of an interim award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra, Bombay in the case.
19 2002 (93) FLR 826
- 110 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
29. In S.K. Maini v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. [(1994) 3 SCC 510 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 776] this Court interpreting Section 2(s)(iv) made the following observations : (SCC p. 518, para 9) "9. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that whether or not an employee is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is required to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions. Such question is required to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and it is not possible to lay down any straitjacket formula which can decide the dispute as to the real nature of duties and functions being performed by an employee in all cases. When an employee is employed to do the types of work enumerated in the definition of workman under Section 2(s), there is hardly any difficulty in treating him as a workman under the appropriate classification but in the complexity of industrial or commercial organizations quite a large number of employees are often required to do more than one kind of work. In such cases, it becomes necessary to determine under which classification the employee will fall for the purpose of deciding whether he comes within the definition of workman or goes out of it. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Co. of India Ltd. v. Burma Shell Management Staff Assn [(1970) 3 SCC 378] . In All India Reserve Bank Employees' Assn. v. Reserve Bank of India [AIR 1966 SC 305] it has been held by this Court that the word 'supervise' and its derivatives are not words of precise import and must often be construed in the light of context, for unless controlled, they cover an easily simple oversight and direction as manual work coupled
- 111 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS with the power of inspection and superintendence of the manual work of others. It has been rightly contended by both the learned counsel that the designation of an employee is not of much importance and what is important is the nature of duties being performed by the employee. The determinative factor is the main duties of the employee concerned and not some works incidentally done. In other words, what is, in substance, the work which employee does or what in substance he is employed to do. Viewed from this angle, if the employee is mainly doing supervisory work but incidentally or for a fraction of time also does some manual or clerical work, the employee should be held to be doing supervisory works. Conversely, if the main work is of manual, clerical or of technical nature, the mere fact that some supervisory or other work is also done by the employee incidentally or only a small fraction of working time is devoted to some supervisory works, the employee will come within the purview of 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act."
31. Testing the case in hand on the touchstone of the principles laid down in the decided cases, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was clearly in error in confirming the order of rejection of reference passed by the State Government merely taking note of the designation of the post held by the Respondent i.e. Area Sales Executive. As noted earlier determination of this question depends on the types of duties assigned to or discharged by the employee and not merely on the designation of the post held by him. We do not find that the State Government or even the High Court has made any attempt to go into the different types of duties discharged by the appellant with a
- 112 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS view to ascertain whether he came within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. The State Government, as noted earlier, merely considered the designation of the post held by him, which is extraneous to the matters relevant for the purpose. From the appointment order dated 21-4-1983/22-4-1983 in which are enumerated certain duties which the appellant may be required to discharge it cannot be held therefrom that he did not come within the first portion of Section 2(s) of the Act. We are of the view that determination of the question requires examination of factual matters for which materials including oral evidence will have to be considered. In such a matter the State Government could not arrogate on to itself the power to adjudicate on the question and hold that the Respondent was not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, thereby terminating the proceedings prematurely. Such a matter should be decided by the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court on the basis of the materials to be placed before it by the parties. Thus the rejection order passed by the State Government is clearly erroneous and the order passed by the High Court maintaining the same is unsustainable.
22.16. By relying on Sharad Kumar's case, he submits that whether an employee can be considered a workman or otherwise under section 2(s) of the ID Act is a matter of reference, and further, the merits of the same
- 113 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS ought to be concluded on the principal nature of the work/duties carried out by such an employee and not merely on the basis of the nomenclature of his role in the company/institution.
22.17. He relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of My power Mazdoor Welfare Union v. Secretary and Commissioner Social Welfare and Labour Department, Government of Karnataka20, more particularly para nos.5 and 6 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
5. To the same effect is the judgment of Supreme Court in 1991 SCC (L&S) 1125; of this Court in B.S. Nageswara v. State of Karnataka, [1987 (55) F.L.R. 229], and other host of authorities.
6. On the basis of various pronouncements made by the Apex Court and this Court it can be safely held that:
20 1977 (77) FLR 205
- 114 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
(a) making of reference is obligatory upon the appropriate Government where the existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is prima facie established;
(b) in exercise of its powers the appropriate Government exercises the administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function;
(c) the appropriate Government is not empowered to decide the merits of industrial dispute under the garb of giving reasons for refusal to make reference;
(d) appropriate Government cannot decide disputed questions of fact,
(e) the dispute regarding the existence of the dispute between employer and the employee and then relationship cannot be adjudicated;
(f) as no period of limitation is prescribed for making the reference, the appropriate Government has no power to reject a claim merely on the ground of the same being belated or stale;
(g) the questions of law sought to be adjudicated cannot be determined by the Government while deciding the question of making reference under S. 10 of the Act. 22.18. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mypower Mazdoor Welfare Union (supra), has dealt with and referred to various judgments relating to industrial disputes and on the basis of various
- 115 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS pronouncements, formulated the points that could be regarded as guidelines that would have to be considered.
22.19. By referring to the above, he submits that the appropriate Government cannot decide on disputed questions of fact. The existence of the dispute between employer and the employee and their relationship cannot be adjudicated and that making a reference is obligatory on the appropriate Government where existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute is primarily established.
22.20. He refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Mahajan Borewell Company v. Rajaram Bhat21, more particularly para no. 10 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
10. The question as to whether a particular person was a workman or not is a pure question of fact which is normally not interferred with by 21 ILR 1998 Kar 172
- 116 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless such finding is shown to be perverse or based upon no evidence. The Supreme Court in Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra [AIR 1957 SC p. 264.] held that the question whether the relationship between the parties is one as of employer and employee or that of the master and servant is a pure question of fact. The decision of the Industrial Tribunal on the question of fact which it has jurisdiction to determine is not liable to be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution unless at the least it is shown to be fully unsupported by the evidence. Where there existed material on record, on the basis of which the labour Court could come to the conclusion that the person employed was a workman, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution was not competent to set aside the finding of the fact recorded by the Labour Court. Mere possibility of arriving at a different conclusion was held to be no ground to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by such labour Court. In Andhra Scientific Co. Ltd. v. A. Seshagiri Rao [AIR 1967 SC p. 408.] it was held:--
"What functions were actually being performed by the employee is a question of fact and the High Court has rightly pointed out that when the Labour Court has on a consideration of the evidence come to a conclusion as regards these functions and has on the basis thereof held that the employee comes within the definition of workman in Section 2(s) of the Act, the High Court would not interfere under Article 226 except in cases where there is clear error on the face of the record. The High Court, however, proceeded to consider the evidence itself and held that the correct picture of the functions that were being performed by Shri Seshargiri Rao was afforded by Ex. A-10 in these terms:--
- 117 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 'Maintenance of general stores-packing and despatching stock-accounts and effective check over them-stock requisitions".
Similarly in Hindustan Antibiotics v. Workmen [AIR 1967 SC 948.] the Court declined to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal constituted under the Act. There has, therefore been a consistent view of the constitutional Courts not to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Boards, Courts or Tribunals constituted under the Act. 22.21. By relying on Mahajan Borewell Company's case (supra), he submits that the question as to whether a particular person was a workman or not, is a pure question of fact, which is not to be interfered with by a Court exercising writ jurisdiction, even after an adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and hence the relief sought for in the present petition is not within the scope of this Court, requiring dismissal of the same.
22.22. In the present case, the adjudication is yet to be done and as such, this Court ought not to
- 118 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS intervene at such a pre-mature stage. On the basis of the above, he submits that the writ petition ought to be dismissed.
23. Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent- State submits that:
23.1. The appropriate Government taking into consideration the various complaints received from the workmen and the contentions raised therein, has referred the matter for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court. It is for the said Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to decide the said dispute between the parties.
23.2. There being a dispute categorically established, no fault can be found in the appropriate Government for making a reference in the manner as done and the questions as formulated. The appropriate government taking
- 119 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS into consideration the disputed facts by both the parties as regards their relationship, has left the matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court.
23.3. Having considered that the person who has raised the claim was working with the employer, the master and servant relationship being established, whether it is an employer- employee or an employer-workman relationship, would have to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court. On the basis of the above, he submits that no fault can be found with the actions taken by the appropriate Government.
24. Heard Sri. Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Sri. Abhishek Patil, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in WP No.106038/2023, Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 in all the
- 120 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS above matters and Sri. V.S. Kalsurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1-State. Perused the papers.
25. The points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:
1. Whether the appropriate Government was required to adjudicate on the dispute between the parties as regards employer-workman relationship or a prime-facie opinion is sufficient for granting reference?
2. Whether the appropriate Government had to consider the aspect of resignation namely whether the said resignation is voluntary or otherwise to come to a conclusion that on resignation the employer-workman relationship has ceased to exist?
3. Whether the appropriate Government is justified in referring the matter for adjudication in the present matter?
4. Whether the reference order passed by the appropriate Government requires any interference at the hands of this Court?
5. What order?
- 121 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
26. Answers to the above points are as under:
27. Answer to Point No.1:- Whether the appropriate Government was required to adjudicate on the dispute between the parties as regards employer-workman relationship or a prime- facie opinion is sufficient for granting reference?
27.1. The submission of Shri. Subramanya learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there was a requirement for the appropriate Government to firstly adjudicate and or come to a conclusion that there is an employer-workman relationship or at least a prima facie opinion in relation thereto before referring the matter for adjudication. His submission is that this being a preliminary aspect which could be determined by the appropriate Government, the same would save the judicial time as also would save unnecessary adjudication in the matter by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal.
- 122 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 27.2. The basic premise for reference of a matter for adjudication requiring a preliminary view to be formulated by the appropriate Government is that there is an 'industry', there is a relationship of an employer-workman in contrast with an employer-employee relationship, therefore requiring a preliminary conclusion to be drawn as to whether the person claiming a reference is a workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or not. Without a prima facie conclusion being arrived at, by the appropriate Government, no reference could be made. 27.3. His submission is that the appropriate Government ought to have come to a conclusion as to whether the person employed is engaged in skilled or unskilled manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, falling under subsection (s) of Section 2 of the ID Act.
- 123 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Without such a conclusion being arrived at, no reference could be made. In this regard, he relies upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sundarambal's case, Steel Authority of India's case, Everestee's case, Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's case and Gadigayya's case. (all referred to supra) 27.4. The submission of Sri. Abhishek Patil and Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the workmen is that the appropriate Government cannot adjudicate as regards the employer-workman relationship. It is only a prima facie conclusion which is required to be arrived at. If there are any factual aspects which are required to be determined, the same would have to be determined by the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court by permitting the parties to lead their
- 124 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS evidence. The appropriate Government, before referring the matter for adjudication, cannot hold a mini-trial to decide on the relationship before referring the matter to adjudication. In this regard, reliance is placed on Sharad Kumar's case, My Power Mazdoor Welfare Union's case and Mahajan Borewell Company's case. What is required to be assessed by this Court is as to whether there was a requirement for the appropriate Government to hold a preliminary inquiry as to whether there was an employer-workman relationship.
27.5. In any industry, there could be an employer-
employee relationship relating to persons who have been engaged in the managerial cadre, that is, persons who are discharging managerial responsibilities, which would include supervisory responsibilities. The Industrial
- 125 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Disputes Act is a special enactment which has been brought about to protect the interests of the labour/workmen and does not deal with the managerial or supervisory staff who do not come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the ID Act. Thus, only persons who come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the ID Act can raise a dispute requiring reference by the appropriate government after conciliation proceedings have failed.
27.6. The ID Act also envisages disputes being raised by a trade union. When a trade union were to raise a dispute on behalf of all the workmen, needless to say, the appropriate Government would have to refer the matter for adjudication without coming to any conclusion as to whether there is employer and workmen relationship. It is only when an individual workman or a group of workmen who are not represented by a trade
- 126 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS union, who raise a dispute and seek for reference, that firstly the appropriate Government could refer the matter for conciliation and if during the conciliation process, a settlement were to be arrived at, close the matter at that stage. If no settlement is arrived at, then to refer the matter for adjudication by an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court, so designated.
27.7. Once a reference is made, a claim petition would have to be filed by the workman, evidence would have to be led, and the witnesses would have to be cross-examined. Similarly, for the employer, a written statement or objections would have to be filed, they would have to cross-examine the claimant's witness, the employer could lead evidence, and the witnesses of the employer would be subjected to cross-examination. Thereafter, the matter is
- 127 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS heard and decided. Thus, once a reference is made, it is the adjudicatory process that would have to be resorted to by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court by following the due procedure.
27.8. It is in the above background that the submission of Shri. Subramanya is that an employer need not be unnecessarily subjected to the above adjudicatory process if ex facie the appropriate Government can come to a conclusion that there is no employer-workman relationship between the parties, and on that basis, he submits that it is obligatory on the part of the appropriate Government to come to such a conclusion.
27.9. In the present matter, as could be seen, the contention of the employer is that there is no employer-workman relationship. The persons who have raised the dispute are all belonging to
- 128 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS the managerial cadre and therefore, those persons not being workmen, reference could not be made. This aspect could be appreciated if there is no dispute or ex facie conclusion, it is clear that the person who raised a dispute is not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s).
27.10. Section 2(s) of the ID Act is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person--
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or
(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or
(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or
- 129 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS
(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
27.11. A perusal of the above definition would indicate that a workman is any person, including an apprentice, employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, and includes any person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with or in consequence of a dispute, but does not include any person who is subject to the Air Force Act, Army Act or the Navy Act, who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison, employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or a person who is employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding
- 130 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Rs.10,000/- per mensem, or exercises either by nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature.
27.12. Insofar as the Petitioner being an industry, the same is not in dispute. Insofar as the person raising the dispute being employed by the employer is also not in dispute. What would have to be seen is whether the workman would come in the exceptions to subsection (s) of Section 2. For the purpose of assessment of this aspect, there being a divergent contention of both the employer and the employee on the ground that the designation of the employee is as an engineer, manager, assistant manager, deputy manager, manager of operations, junior manager. The very designation indicating to be a manager, he would come within the exception
- 131 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS at (iii) of subsection (s) of Section 2 of the ID Act.
27.13. The submission on part of the Respondent, however, is that though the designation may be as a manager, the role discharged by such person is as an engineer discharging skilled technical operational work. The designation as a manager is only for the purposes of promotion or otherwise. The same does not have any basis as regards the same coming under (iii) of subsection (s) of Section 2. 27.14. They have not been employed in the managerial or administrative capacity, and they are not discharging any role in respect thereto. They do not have any powers to employ any person or hire any person. There are no decision-making powers or authority. Merely referring to them as 'manager' would not make them come under (iii) of subsection (s) of
- 132 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Section 2. There being a serious dispute, it is contended that the appropriate Government has rightly left the matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. 27.15. The above being the divergent contentions, as can be seen, the Petitioner company is a large company having a Board of Directors and several persons engaged by the company as an employee or as workmen. It would not be in such circumstances possible for the appropriate Government to ascertain as to whether the person is an employee or a workman. The same would require evidence to be led. Though, of course, in the order of reference, the appropriate Government could have stated this aspect more clearly and indicated that due to the disputed relationship, the matter would have to be adjudicated by the Industrial
- 133 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS Tribunal/Labour Court, it has not done so clearly.
27.16. The appropriate Government has formulated questions to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. In almost all the cases, it is as to whether the person is a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. As indicated supra, if the appropriate Government had gone into the issue of whether a person is a workman or not, the same would require holding a mini-trial, examination of the documents submitted without following the requirements of an adjudicatory process, thereby depriving the parties of being adequately represented.
27.17. The employment not being disputed, it not being disputed that the employer is an industry. One of the disputes is to ascertain whether that
- 134 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS person is a workman or not. On the face of the records that have been placed before this Court, it is not possible to come to a conclusion as to whether that person is a workman within the definition of subsection (s) of Section 2 of the ID Act without holding a trial and examining the documents which may be produced by the parties.
27.18. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that, in the present case, the aspect of whether the person is a workman can only be determined after holding a trial and cannot be so determined on the face of the documents in a prima facie manner. Of course, if the same could have been determined prima facie, the appropriate Government could not have referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate as to whether the person raising a dispute is a workman. When the documents
- 135 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS and material on record do not ex facie indicate and establish as to whether the person is a workman, the appropriate Government has rightly referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court for adjudication. The employer cannot find fault with the same. 27.19. The employer would always have the opportunity to place all the relevant material before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court in order to enable the adjudication as regards the relationship and status of the parties. This would be the case even if the appropriate Government were to come to a prima facie conclusion that the concerned person was a workman, even then the same would have to be finally determined by the Tribunal/Labour Court. The prima facie conclusion of the Appropriate Government would not cast an
- 136 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS embargo on such final determination by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. 27.20. Hence I answer Point No.1 by holding that the appropriate Government was not required to adjudicate on the dispute between the parties as regards employer-workman relationship, a prime-facie opinion is sufficient for granting reference, the dispute as regards the relationship would have to be determined by the Industrial Tribunal/Labbour Court after evidence is lead and opportunity is granted to all the parties.
28. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the appropriate Government had to consider the aspect of resignation namely whether the said resignation is voluntary or otherwise to come to a conclusion that on resignation the employer-workman relationship has ceased to exist?
- 137 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 28.1. The submission of Shri Subramanya, learned counsel for the Petitioner - employer is that the Respondents have submitted a resignation. This resignation having been accepted, the relationship of an employer-workman had ceased and as such, no reference could be made on an allegation made by an ex-workman as regards a relationship which had ceased to exist.
28.2. His submission is also that on the resignation being accepted, all the amounts which were due to the employee have been released inasmuch as the provident fund, gratuity, which were to the credit of the employee have been released. Lastly, he submits that the employee having received these amounts have not deposited the said amounts, they have not even offered to deposit the said amounts. They, having received the benefit of the said
- 138 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS amounts, cannot now raise a dispute in relation thereto.
28.3. Reference is made to the decision of National Engineering Industries to contend that with an application for resignation having been made and having been accepted, no dispute can be raised thereafter.
28.4. Further reference is made to Everstee's decision to contend that when a resignation submitted in pursuance of a scheme for a voluntary retirement is made, no dispute can be raised since there is no relationship in existence. Reliance is placed on Karnataka Lingayat Education Society's case (supra) to contend that a retired workman would not be a workman under Section 2 (s) of the ID Act. For similar argument, reference is made to Gadigayya's case.
- 139 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 28.5. By relying on Sriram Manohar Bande's case, it has been contended that the resignation having been accepted, the dispute was raised 14 months thereafter. Once a resignation is submitted, the same cannot be withdrawn. 28.6. Per contra, the submission of the Respondent's Counsel is that insofar as Respondent No.2 in WP No.106038/2023, he had been forced to submit a resignation on 06.08.2020, vide email dated 08.08.2020, within two days, the resignation was withdrawn. This resignation, insofar as that particular Respondent is concerned, was withdrawn even before the acceptance.
28.7. The submission of the Respondent's counsel is that these resignations were forced upon the workmen, inasmuch as all these resignations were in the year 2020, after the onset of COVID pandemic. The employer had prevailed upon
- 140 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS the workmen to sign pre-formatted, pre- addressed resignation letters and at the same time, the signatures of the workmen were obtained on applications for disbursement of monies. These were not voluntary actions on part of the workmen.
28.8. Reliance has been placed on certain newspaper articles and the letter addressed by JSW's Suffered Employees Forum to the Chief Minister, the proceedings before the Deputy Labour Commissioner contends that all the resignations were forceful, they were not voluntarily given so as to bind the workmen. 28.9. It is in the above circumstances that the aforesaid point is required to be considered and answered. The question that has been referred to by the appropriate Government in this regard in most of the matters is as to whether the applicant proves that the Petitioner has
- 141 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS obtained his resignation forcefully and relieved him without paying compensation. Of Course in some of the matters the question referred is whether the management proves that the termination of services is justified. 28.10. Thus in so far as the majority of the matters the aspect of reignatiuon has been referred to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour court for adjudication which cannot be found fault with. 28.11. If the resignation letters were voluntary, the relationship of an employer-workman would cease to exist and as such, no dispute could be raised by a person who had voluntarily resigned. What would have to be ascertained is whether there was a voluntary resignation or not. If the resignation letter were forced upon the workmen, the employer cannot take advantage of such a situation. In this regard, in a majority of the matters the aspect of
- 142 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS resignation is referred, which would be considered by the Tribunal/Court after evidence is lead and by providing adequate opportunity to all concerned. Merely because in some matters the aspect of termination of services is referred will not take away the fact that the aspect of resignation would not be considered. All these requiring evidence, the same could not be determined by the Appropriate Government and cannot be determined by this court.
28.12. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that the appropriate Government has rightly left the aspect of resignation, whether it is voluntary or involuntary in most of the cases as also the aspect of termination of services in some of the matters to be detemined by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, the Burden of Proof being on the applicant the Petitioner would also
- 143 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS have an opportunity of placing all the relevant material on record. There can be no prejudice which can be said to have been caused to the Petitioner by such reference.
29. Answer to Point No.3: Whether the appropriate Government is justified in referring the matter for adjudication in the present matter? 29.1. In view of my answer to Point Nos.1 and 2
above, it is clear that the appropriate Government has not given a finding prima facie or otherwise as regards the relationship of the employer-workman, employer-employee, but has referred the same for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. 29.2. Insofar as resignation is concerned, the appropriate Government has also not given any finding as to whether there is a voluntary or involuntary resignation, but has referred the same for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court.
- 144 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS 29.3. These being the two questions which have been referred by the appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, both of them being with application of mind, I am of the considered opinion that the reference made as such is justified.
29.4. The appropriate Government has left the disputed issues/questions to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. I am of the considered opinion that the reference made as such is justified.
29.5. Thus, I answer Point No.3 by holding that the appropriate Government is justified in referring the questions for adjudication in the manner as referred, all the parties would have enough oppertunity to place their respective contentions before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court.
30. Answer to Point No.4: Whether the reference order passed by the appropriate Government
- 145 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS requires any interference at the hands of this Court?
30.1. In view of my answers to Points No.1, 2 and 3 above, having come to a conclusion that the appropriate Government was justified in referring the matter in the manner as done, I am of the considered opinion that the reference order made by the appropriate Government requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
31. Answer to Point No.5: What order?
31.1. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) No grounds being made out, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
2) Needless to say, all the parties would be required to be given adequate opportunity to
- 146 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7139 WP No. 106038 of 2023 C/W WP No. 101114 of 2022 WP No. 101905 of 2022 AND 6 OTHERS place all the documents and evidence that they rely upon in support of their respective cases.
3) It is made clear that the Appropriate Government not having expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court has also not expressed any opinion. It would be for the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to determine the issues independently, in accordance with law, by considering the evidence lead.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AMM/PRS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1