Dismissed¶¶63

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Feb 2026WA/1072/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regularization of services; honorarium basis; daily wage employees; temporary employees list serial nos.; Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation; W.P.No.988/2019 (S-REG); WA No. 1072 of 2025; intra-court writ appeal dismissed; State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1; Vinod Kumar v. Union of India (2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230; pernicious practice to exploit labour; Board resolution 28.09.2015 / 29.06.2015 unimplemented; preference and priority on fresh recruitment; Karnataka High Court Act Section 4; S-REG; Hassan/Mysore supervisors and showroom assistants.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellant; the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.988/2019 stands, the Division Bench having concurred with the view taken therein. ¶¶63

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1072 OF 2025 (S-REG)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA STATE COIR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATION REP BY

¶11

ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VITC BUILDING KASTRUBA ROAD

¶12

BENGALURU -560001

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. VEDA MURTHY M V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶18

SRI. SOMASHEKARA H.N. S/O TRK NAIK, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR CHIKKAGANDASI-573 119 ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT HEGGATTA,

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AT POST GANDASI HOBLI-573119 ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT

¶22

H.N.KANTHA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR ADIHALLI-573 119, GANDSI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT LALANAKERE POST, GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT

¶23

DODDEGOWDA S/O KUNTEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERVISOR GANDSI HANDPOST-573119 ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT NARAYANA GHATAHALLI, TALALUR POST 573103 ARASIKERE TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT

¶24

DHARMASHIVAPPA S/O SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERVISOR CHIDARAVALLI UNIT-573 119 T.NARASIPUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT R/O SANKODANAHALLI, JAJOOR POST, ARASIKERE TALUK 573 103 HASSAN DISTRICT

¶25

MAHADEVA SHASTRY S/O SIDDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WORKING AS SHOWROOM ASSISTANT MYSORE -570 001 R/AT K.HAGALAHALLI

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

K.HONNALAGERE POST 571 433 MADDURU TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT

¶30

S.RAGHU S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS SHOWROOM ASSISTANT MYOSRE 570 001 R/AT NO. 162/1 AMBEDKAR BHAVAN YARAGANAHALLI-570 011 MYSORE DISTRICT

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA .S.JOIS, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2, R3, R5 AND R7;

¶33

SRI. ARUNA G.S, HCGP FOR R1;

¶34

R6, R7, & R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶35

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE FILE TO EXAMINE THE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY OF THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.988/2019 AND SET ASIDE THE SAME BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AS IT IS NECESSARY IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE, ETC.

¶36

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶42

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶43

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶44

impugning the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.988/2019 (S-REG), filed by respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein.

¶45

The parties are referred to as per their ranking

¶46

before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience.

¶47

The petitioners have been continuously working in various branches of the Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation' ), for more than 10 years. They had earlier filed W.P.Nos.1074510756/2012 (S-RES) and connected matters seeking regularization of their services in respondent No.2Corporation.

¶48

Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed off the

¶49

said writ petitions directing the Corporation to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization and as and when

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

it became inevitable to make fresh recruitment, then to provide preference and priority to the petitioners.

¶53

The petitioners also contended that the Corporation

¶54

has prepared a list of temporary employees and the petitioners' names were found at Serial Nos.33, 34, 17, 43, 18 and 46 respectively. The further case of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that the Corporation had regularized services of 17 persons similarly situated as the petitioners in February 2011 as per the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1486/2010 and connected matters. The employees, who were similarly placed approached the Corporation for regularization of their services as they had put in more than 10 to 20 years of service. The Board of the Corporation met on 29.06.2015 and resolved to send proposals to regularize the services of 33 employees by authorizing the Managing Director to take appropriate steps.

¶55

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

However, despite the said decision of the Board to regularize the services of 33 employees, the petitioner's services were not regularized by the Corporation and therefore, they filed the writ petition, in which the impugned judgment and order came to be passed. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has observed that there is no dispute that the petitioners were all employed with the respondent No.2-Corporation on honorarium basis, and that they have been working for more than 10 years is also not in dispute. If the petitioners' services have been continuously used by the Corporation without any break, it cannot be said that the

¶59

services of the petitioner were not required or not necessary and that there was no permanent work. Learned Single Judge also noted that at the meeting of the Board of the Corporation held on 28.09.2015, it was resolved to regularize the services of all 33 employees including the petitioners, but the said Board Resolution has not been implemented.

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10663-DB WA No. 1072 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the judgments in STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. UMA DEVI [(2006) 4 SCC 1] and in VINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(2024) 1 S.C.R. 1230] the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and observed that continuous employment of the petitioners on honorarium / daily wage basis for a period extending from 10 to 20 years is nothing but pernicious practice to exploit labour by underpaying them.

¶63

We fully concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and therefore, we dismiss this appeal.

¶64

In view dismissal of the appeal, pending interim applications, if any do not survive for consideration, hence stand disposed of.

¶65

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶66

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶67

¶68

CT: SN : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka State Coir Development Corporation v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri K v Venkataramanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Susheel Kumar Vs the Station House Officer (Sho)

M/S Iffco-Tokio Gic Ltd., Vs Sri. Babu

Skanda Residency Vs Sri. M. B. Karthik

Manjushree H S Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri Prasanna Kumar a v