Dismissed¶¶91

Madhusri D.M. v. Chief Executive Officer

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2025WP/6328/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madhusri D.M. v. Chief Executive Officer, Chikmagalur Zilla Panchayath and others; WP No. 6328 of 2020 (L-RES); decided 15.09.2025 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; writ challenge to Labour Court Chikkamagaluru award dt. 22.07.2019 in I.D.A No.07/2016; reinstatement and back wages refused; Section 2(s), Section 10(4-A), Section 2-A Industrial Disputes Act 1947; workman; 240 days; honorarium Rs.1,000/-; NREGA Project Assistant; Shanuvalli Grama Panchayat; Koppa Taluk Panchayat; failure to prove appointment; newspaper publication denied (MW4); Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act alternative remedy; Articles 14 and 16; narrow writ-interference scope; no perversity; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner failed to establish her appointment before the Labour Court. ¶¶81

Madhusri D.M. Vs Chief Executive Officer — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6328 OF 2020 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MADHUSRI D.M. W/O KESHAVA K. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KARKI VILLAGE, SHANUVALLI POST, KOPPA TALUK CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT 577101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. N.SHESHADRI ADVOCATE FOR GURURAJ

¶12

R.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHIKMAGALUR ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHICKMAGALUR 577101

¶15

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER KOPPA TALUK PANCHAYATH, KOPPA, CHIKMAGALURU DIST 577101

¶17

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHANUVALLI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SHANUVALLI AT AND POST 577101 KOPPA TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.ASHOK.N.NAYAK.,ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

(BY SRI.ABHINAY.Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO-QUASH THE AWARD DATED 22.07.2019 IN I.D.A NO.07/2016 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALUR AS PER ANNEXURE-LDIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER AS CLERK/DATA ENTRY OPERATION IN THE OFFICE OF R-3 WITH BACKWAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICES AND WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.

¶28

N.Sheshadri and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

Petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the award dated 22.07.2019 in I.D.A No.07/2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru.

¶30

It is the case of the petitioner that she was working as a Project Assistant on contract basis in the

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

office of respondent No.3 on payment of an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- for a period of one and a half years. During 2013, there was a newspaper publication regarding requirement of Data Entry Operator in the office of respondent No. 3 i.e., Shanuvalli Grama Panchayath. Accordingly, petitioner applied to the said post.

¶34

The Grama Panchayath, after holding a meeting on 08.11.2013, had appointed the petitioner to the said post on 11.11.2013. It is the further case of the petitioner that she has been working to the best satisfaction of the higher officer without any interruption. Once again a paper publication was called out by the respondents in the newspaper for the post of clerk - cum data entry operator. The petitioner again applied for the said post along with 2 other applicants, and upon a meeting being held by the Grama Panchayath, Shanuvalli, the petitioner was appointed to the said post, and the appointment of the petitioner was sent to the Taluk Panchayath, Koppa, to

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

forward the same to the Zilla Panchayath,

¶39

Chikkamagaluru, for approval.

¶40

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, after the appointment of the petitioner and the pendency of the approval for the appointment, elections were held for the Grama Panchayath, and the entire elected body changed due to the election results, and the newly elected body did not want the petitioner to continue in the said process and therefore wrote a letter to the Zilla Panchayath, Chikkmagaluru stating that her appointment was not in accordance with law, after which the respondent No.1 wrote a letter to respondent No. 2 stating that the appointment of the petitioner was illegal and accordingly the appointment was cancelled by the Zilla Panchayath.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was relieved from her duties on 29.02.2016 in view of the respondents refusing her continuity of service. Therefore, left with no other

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

alternative, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing an IDA No.7/2016 under Section 10 (4-A) read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to set aside the award of refusal of work passed by the respondents and for reinstatement to the original post, along with back wages and other benefits. The labour court considered the case of the petitioner and has erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner due to which the petitioner is before this Court.

¶45

It is the further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be set aside. He further contends that the petitioner, being appointed on a contract basis, ought to have been continued in the services. When her appointment was pending for approval, the same ought to have been approved, instead of that, she has been relieved from her work.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner further

¶49

contends that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the provisions of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, as she has worked for more than 240 days, and as such, she could not have been terminated contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has committed an error in coming to a conclusion that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act. So also, he contends that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of WW-1 to WW-3 regarding the appointment and continuation of her services in the office of respondent No.2.

¶50

It is further contended that in similar cases the candidates, like that of the petitioner have been continued in the services. Therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated against from amongst other workers who are similarly placed, for political reasons. The same is in

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and the same is not sustainable in law, and accordingly, it requires to be set aside and reversed.

¶54

Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents sustains the impugned order by contending that there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the Labour Court, which has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects, both oral and documentary, and the fact that the petitioner who has come before the Court primarily ought to have proved her appointment and produced material to show her appointment with respondent No. 2. Even according to the petitioner, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was on an honorarium of Rs. 1,000/- and it

¶55

is contended that she was employed on the NREGA scheme as a Project Assistant on a contract basis. Therefore, the petitioner cannot become an employee

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

under the definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

¶60

It is also contended by learned counsel for the

¶61

respondents that the appointment of the petitioner primarily was not even temporary, it was on an honorarium basis. Secondly, the appointment so made was put up for approval before the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Chikmagaluru and the same was rejected. The petitioner aggrieved by the same had challenged it before this Court in a writ petition which was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, the approval was not granted has attained finality, which has not been questioned by the petitioner. It is also contended as primary argument by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner would not come within the definition of "workman" as contemplated under the Industrial Dispute Act, more specifically 2(s), as she is taken on an honorarium basis to the office of respondent No.2 which is not an industry.

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Learned counsel for the respondents further

¶66

contends that the appointment sought to be claimed by the petitioner through a newspaper publication is also denied by the management witness - MW4, who is the newspaper editor of the newspaper publication so relied upon by the petitioner in W7.

¶67

It is clearly stated by MW4 in his evidence, which has been elicited and appreciated by the Labour Court, that no such newspaper publication was taken out. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that when no documents are produced by the petitioner to prove her employment and that she being an employee, a workman as contemplated under 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and through any other piece of evidence either oral or documentary, the question of appreciating the contentions or entertainment of the claim made before the Labour Court is totally ruled out. All this

¶68

has been considered in detail by the Labour Court and has rightly rejected the claim of the petition which does not

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

call for interference as no question of law is made out nor

¶73

any point is made out to show illegality or perversity in the order.

¶74

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

¶75

and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶76

It is no doubt that the petitioner was appointed as a Data Entry Operator for the post of a Project Assistant on a contract basis on a honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month in the office of respondent No.2. But the same was not approved by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Chikkmagaluru and it was rejected. The petitioner has also not succeeded, though she has challenged the same and withdrawn the same. Therefore, the order of the non-approval of the post of the petitioner remains final and has attained finality.

¶77

When the petitioner/workman comes before the Court to show that she was employed by the respondents, it is the primary duty and the onus on the petitioner to

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

establish her appointment, which has not been established

¶82

by the petitioner before the labour Court. No materials are placed. The newspaper publication so claimed to have been called for on the basis of which she was appointed has been denied, which has not been substantiated, and these aspects have been clearly appreciated and dealt with by the labour Court while deciding the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the labour Court under Section 10 (4A) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act.

¶83

This Court is not sitting as an appellate Court to decide the matter of whether the petitioner was employed and to deal with the evidentiary materials placed before the Court. The scope of interference of this Court is only narrow to the aspect of whether there is any illegality or perversity committed by the Labour Court in dealing with the matter. In my opinion, the Labour Court has gone into the details of the assertions made by the petitioner and has considered each of the aspects meticulously so also by relying upon the counter statement made by the

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:36833 WP No. 6328 of 2020

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

respondents and having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove her appointment, the question of reinstatement and backwages would not arise and accordingly, held in the negative.

¶88

Having considered all these aspects and the submissions of counsel for both parties, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the award rendered by the Labour Court.

¶89

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶90

ORDER

¶91

The petition is dismissed.

¶92

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶93

RCK,List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Madhusri D.M. v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusri D.M. v. Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Kc Das Private Limited Vs the Addl. Labour Commissioner

Sri Ashok Kumar Vs the Management of

Sri G P Narasimha Reddy Vs Smt G S Shanthamma

M/S Community Centre Pre University College Vs Smt Veena G

Smt. Vandana Rangarao Pol Vs the Divisional Controller

Raghu R Vs the State of Karnataka