Karnataka High Court
M/S Adarsh Developers vs State Ofkarnataka on 31 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43748
WP No. 20841 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 20841 OF 2021 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. ADARSH DEVELOPERS,
NO.10, VITTAL MALYA ROAD,
SHANTALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR.RAMANJANEYA, MANAGER HR AND ADMIN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARJUN RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
by THEJAS DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
KUMAR N
BENGALURU - 560 001,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
KARNATAKA
2. ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND
CONCILIATION OFFICER,
DIVISION IV,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. MR. SRINIVASAPPA C.,
AGED MAJOR,
S/O. CHIKKAVEERAPPA,
NO.299/2, ASHA NILAYA, 2ND FLOOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43748
WP No. 20841 of 2021
HC-KAR
3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS,
NARASIPURA LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. V.R.DATAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARNIG 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Arjun Rao, counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajendra.K.R., AGA for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri.V.R.Datar, counsel for respondent No.3, have appeared in person.
2. The petition averments are as follows. The third respondent was employed in the sister concern of the petitioner, Adarsh Prime Projects Private Limited, as a site engineer. It is said that he performed a supervisory, management role, and his last drawn salary was around 47,000/- per month. It is said that he remained absent from work without leave or prior intimation; however, he issued a -3- NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR legal notice falsely claiming that he was prevented from joining work.
On the 25th day of June, 2020, he made a complaint to the second respondent, and the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to appear in proceedings initiated on a complaint of the third respondent. The petitioner filed a statement of objections, and it is said that no hearing or opportunity was given to the petitioner. The Government passed an order of reference on 29.09.2021. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
Counsel for the petitioner placed relied on the following decisions:
(1) PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER - (2015) 15 SCC 1.
(2) SECRETARY, INDIAN TEA ASSOCIATION V/S. AJIT KUMAR BARAT AND OTHERS - (2000) 3 SCC
93. -4- NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR (3) MOHINDER SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER V/S. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS - (1978) 1 SCC 405.
Counsel for the third respondent relied on the following decisions.
(1) AVON SERVICES (PRODUCTION AGENCIES) PVT. LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HARYANA, FARIDABAD AND OTHERS - LLJ VOL.I- 1979.
(2) PRABHAKAR V/S. JOINT DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER - (2015) 15 SCC 1.
(3) WORKMEN EMPLOYED BY HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED V/S. HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED - (1984) 4 SCC 392.
(4) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX AND ANOTHER VS. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT.
LTD., - I.T.A.NO.141/2020 C/W.
I.T.A.NO.151/2020.
(5) D.P.MAHESHWARI V/S. DELHI
ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS - (1983) 4 SCC
293.
(6) RAM AVTAR SHARMA AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER - (1985) 3 SCC 189.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR (7) THE MANAGEMENT OF KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO. LTD., V/S. THE WORKMEN OF KIRLOSKAR ELECTRIC CO., LTD., AND OTHERS - ILR 1974 KAR 719.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers and the records secured by the office of the Advocate General with care.
5. The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the order of reference.
As per the directions of this Court, office of the Advocate General has furnished the true copies of the records relating to the reference by filing a memo. The memo is placed on record.
6. Suffice it to note that the third respondent was employed in the sister concern of the petitioner. Contending that he was forced to give resignation and refused work from 23.05.2020, he made a complaint on 25.06.2020. The petitioner Company appeared before the Asst. Labor Commissioner and filed its objections. The conciliation was failed. The Conciliation officer sent a failure report along with a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR factual report dated 20.07.2021 and the Opinion Report dated 20.07.2021. The Government formed an opinion that there exists an industrial dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent and accordingly, framed point for reference on 17.09.2021. The Government vide order dated 29.09.2021, referred the dispute to the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru for adjudication.
Counsel Sri.Arjun Rao., in presenting his arguments contended that the third respondent is not a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. He argued by saying that the alleged dispute between the petitioner and the third respondent cannot be an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act and the Government cannot mechanically pass an order of reference. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed.
By way of reply, Counsel Sri.V.R.Datar., submits that the question of whether someone is a "workman" or not is for the Labor Court or Industrial Tribunal to decide after the case is referred. The Government's role is administrative, and it cannot determine the legal issues of the dispute. Counsel therefore, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
Government Advocate justified the order of reference and submits that the Writ Petition may be dismissed.
It is not in dispute that the third respondent was employed in the sister concern of the petitioner. He filed a complaint contending that he was forced to give resignation and refused work from 23.05.2020. Taking note of the material evidence on record, the Government opined that there exists an Industrial Dispute and referred the dispute for adjudication. However, the petitioner contends that the opinion is necessarily required to be reasoned and no such opinion is found in the impugned order. The said contention must necessarily fail. The reason is apparent. As is evident from the records furnished by the officer of the Advocate General, the Government extenso referred to the material on record and rightly referred the dispute for adjudication.
It is pivotal to note that the Government (the "appropriate government" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) cannot decide the merits of a dispute or definitively say -8- NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR that a person is not a "workman" at the time of referring the dispute. The Government function while deciding whether to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act is considered as an administrative function, not a judicial or a quasi-judicial one. This mean, its role is limited to a prima facie examination of whether an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. Furthermore, whether a person is a workman under the Act is a factual question to be decided by the Labor Court or the Tribunal after the dispute is referred. If there is a genuine dispute about the person's status, the Government should refer the matter for adjudication. In the present case, the specific contention of the petitioner is that the third respondent is not a workman i.e., to say there is a genuine dispute about the third respondent's status. The question of whether a person was a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act, is a mixed question of fact and law that is required to be adjudicated by the competent Labor Court or the Tribunal after the dispute is referred to them. In the essence, the Government's role is to act as a gateway to the adjudication machinery, not to replace it by deciding core issue of the dispute itself. In the present case, the Government has rightly passed an order of reference. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC:43748 WP No. 20841 of 2021 HC-KAR The decision in AJIT KUMAR BARAT's case is applicable to the facts and circumstances of that case and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on the decisions referred to the supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decisions turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions. I find no grounds to quash the order of reference. The Writ Petition is liable to be rejected.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Because of rejection of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.
SD/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31