Dismissed¶40

Sri. Chinnaiah v. the Deputy Conservator of Forests

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2025WP/60133/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, WP No. 60133 of 2014 (L-TER), Justice Jyoti M, order dated 24.11.2025 — jurisdiction of Labour Court; Forest Department of Government of Karnataka held not an 'industry' under the I.D. Act; Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act; challenge to award dated 07.08.2013 in IID No. 204/1999 of Labour Court, Mysore; State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsingh Parmar (2001) 9 SCC 713 and Co-ordinate Bench ruling in WP No.26984/2009 relied upon; writ petition dismissed; interim relief discharged; merits not examined.

What did the court decide?

The respondents being the Government of Karnataka, Department of Forest, it is not an 'Industry'; consequently the Labour Court had no jurisdiction and the petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act was dismissed without discussing the merits. ¶35

Sri. Chinnaiah Vs the Deputy Conservator of Forests — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:48396 WP No. 60133 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 60133 OF 2014 (L-TER)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. CHINNAIAH, S/O. PUTTAVEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, DEBUR VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570014.

¶9

&PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. H.M.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, MYSORE DIVISION, ARANYA BHAVAN, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE-570011.

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, FOREST DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAVANA, MALLESWARAM, 18^TH CROSS, BENGALURU - 560003.

¶16

&RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., AGA)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:48396 WP No. 60133 of 2014

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Counsel Sri.H.M.Manjunatha., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing.

¶25

AGA for the respondents has appeared in person.

¶26

The award dated 07.08.2013, which was passed by

¶27

the Labor Court, Mysore, in IID NO. 204/1999 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the writ papers with care.

¶29

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.26984/2009 disposed of on 24.11.2009 has held that Forest Department of Government of Karnataka is not an industry falling within the definition of said terms as enumerated in the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48396 WP No. 60133 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

I.D.Act. Hence, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also placed reliance in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT AND

¶33

OTHERS V/S. PRATAMSINGH NARSINGH PARMAR

¶34

reported in (2001) 9 SCC 713 has held that Government Department is not an industry and where there is a dispute that the Government is not an industry, it is for the workman to establish by leading cogent evidence that the department is an industry and disposed of the petition by reserving the liberty for the respondent to workout his remedy before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.

¶35

In the present case, the respondents are the Government of Karnataka, Department of Forest, and it is not an Industry as observed by the Hon9ble Apex Court. Hence, the petition filed under section 10 (4-A ) of the I.D. Act is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. As the petition itself is dismissed, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case.

¶36

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:48396 WP No. 60133 of 2014

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Because of dismissal of Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim relief if any stands discharged.

¶41

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶42