Panchakshrayya Alias Babumestri Iremath Vs the Senior Labour Inspector

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 75717 OF 2013 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PANCHAKSHRAYYA ALIASBABUMESTRI S. HIREMATH AKUPYRE, M/S. KUMAR GARAGE, OPP: CO-OPERATIVE TEXTILES MILLS, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. ANNIGERI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, IIND CIRCLE, HUBLI DIVISION, NEW COTTON MARKET, SHRINATH COMPLEX, HUBLI-580029.

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, CHILD LABOUR ACT, RECOVERY AUTHORITY, DHARWAD DIVISION, NEW COTTON MARKET, SHRINATH COMPLEX, HUBLI-580029.

¶15

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, ANNEGERI, TQ: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD-582201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT BEARING ITS NO. /HI, KA, NI,-2/CR-10/2008-09, DATED: 03/03/2011 AND THE SAME IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT BEARING ITS NO.BAKAKA/CR-10/11-12-271, DATED: 21/05/2011, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT BEARING ITS NO. RRC/VAHI/01/12-13 DATED: 17/10/2012, WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURES-C AND D; ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4, DROP THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND PASS ANY SUCH ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The present petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

“ WHEREFORE, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Annexure A and B, bearing No: KAHU-2/KAVEKA/BAKAKA/CR-56/2007-2008, dated 26/12/2008, order passed by the authorized officer under the payment of wages Act, and bearing No: /Hi, KA, NI,-2/CR-10/2008-09, dated 3/3/2011, order passed by the senior labour inspector Hubli-IInd circle, Hubli, For the following reliefs.

¶28

1) Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari, and quash the order passed by the 1^st respondent bearing its No. /HI, KA, NI,-2/CR-10/2008-09, dated: 03/03/2011 and the same is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-B and show cause notice issued by the 2^nd respondent bearing its No.BAKAKA/CR-10/11-12-271, dated:

¶29

21/05/2011, the notice issued by the 4th respondent bearing its No. RRC/VAHI/01/12-13 dated: 17/10/2012, Which are produced herewith and marked as Annexure- C and D .

¶30

2) Issue of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to 4, drop the proceedings against the petitioner and Pass any such order as

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶34

3) Grant of any other reliefs deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

The relevant facts leading to the present petition are that on 24.02.2007, the first respondent, the Senior Labour Inspector, along with other officials visited the business premises of the petitioner and having allegedly found that the petitioner had employed two child labourers viz., Ramanna and Sahanur, both aged 13 years as helpers in the garage, issued a notice dated 29.07.2008 to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the said notice by contending, inter alia , that he had not employed any child labourers and had not committed any offence as alleged in the notice dated 29.07.2008, under the provisions of the Minimum of Wages Act, 1948¹ . The petitioner examined himself and also examined two witnesses, who are the parents of the alleged child labourers. The respondent No.1 did not crossexamine the petitioner or the two other independent witnesses before the Authorized Officer. Vide order dated 26.12.2008, the

¶36

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1948’

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petition filed under Section 20(3) of the Act, 1948 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), was dismissed by the Authorized Officer. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 initiated proceedings under the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986² and vide order dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), the respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to deposit ₹40,000/- alleging that he had committed offences under Section 3 of the Child Labour Act. Subsequently, the respondent No.2- Assistant Labour Commissioner, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated 21.05.2011 (Annexure-C to the writ petition), and the respondent No.4-Revenue Inspector issued a notice dated 17.10.2012 (Annexure-D to the writ petition) for recovery of amounts. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-B), 21.05.2011 (Annexure-C) and 17.10.2012 (Annexure-D).

¶40

It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the Labour Officer having recorded a finding, vide order dated 26.12.2008, under the provisions of

¶41

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Child Labour Act’

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the Act, 1948, to the effect that the Authority has failed to establish the relationship between the alleged child labourers and the petitioner, it was not open to the Senior Labour Inspector to initiate proceedings under the Child Labour Act. It is further contended that the official respondents not having challenged the order dated 26.12.2008, the initiation of proceedings under the Child Labour Act, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

¶45

Per contra, the learned AGA appearing for the official respondents justifies the order dated 03.03.2011 and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶46

It is forthcoming that the Labour Officer, in the proceedings initiated under Section 20 of the Act, 1948, has recorded a finding that the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the alleged labourers had not been proved. It is also forthcoming that, in the proceedings initiated under the Child Labour Act, the petitioner entered appearance and filed his objections.

¶47

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, a finding having been recorded by a

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

superior officer, vide order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure-A), the Senior Labour Inspector could not have passed the order dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-B). Although it is the contention of the learned AGA that the proceedings culminating in the order dated 03.03.2011 (Annexure-B), were initiated under a different enactment, namely the Child Labour Act, and the dropping of the proceedings vide order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure-A), was under the Minimum Wages Act, it is pertinent to note that, vide order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure-A), a finding was recorded to the effect that the official respondents had failed to prove the employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the alleged child labourers. In view of the same, the question of the same authority initiating another proceeding under a different enactment, when the finding regarding the employer-employee relationship has attained finality, does not arise.

¶51

Hence, the reliefs sought for in the present writ

¶52

petition are liable to be granted.

¶53

Hence, the following:

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10926 WP No. 75717 of 2013

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ORDER

¶58

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶59

ii) The order bearing No. /HI, KA, NI,-2/CR10/2008-09 dated 03.03.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-B to the writ petition), show cause notice bearing No.BAKAKA/CR-10/11-12-271 dated 21.05.2011 issued by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and the notice dated 17.10.2012 bearing No.RRC/VAHI/01/12-13 issued by the respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) are hereby quashed.

¶60

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶61

HMB para Nos.1 and 2 PMP para No.2 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Panchakshrayya Alias Babumestri Iremath v. the Senior Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panchakshrayya Alias Babumestri Iremath v. the Senior Labour Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lakshmi Vs Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation

M/S. Haj S.R. Umachagi @ Co. Coen Road, Hubli Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebehal

Shanawax S/O. Srfaraj Ahamed Ummachagi Vs Basheer Ahmed S/O. Nabisab Muddebihal

The Management of Nekrtc, Vs Balappa S/O Yamanappa Tondihal

Sundarao S/O. Shikhamani Jakkam Vs the Management

Suresh S/O. Timmanna Gaonkar Vs the Divisional Controller