Disposed¶45

Sri.K.J.P Chaudhary v. Sri.P. Ramachandra

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026WA/1400/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Division Bench writ appeal WA No. 1400 of 2024 (L-RES), decided 23.06.2026; claim before Regional Labour Commissioner (Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948) in Claim Application No.14/2012-B2 rejected for lack of evidence; writ petition dismissed on ground of delay; limited judicial review; admitted rent arrears of Rs.92,500/- (statement of objections dated 14.03.2012) recoverable with interest; parties from Udupi, Karwar and Mangalore; oral judgment per Justice D K Singh with Justice T.M.Nadaf on the bench.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the appellant to approach the Labour Commissioner to realise the admitted Rs.92,500/-, to be paid with interest if not already paid; writ appeal disposed of with these directions and observations, and pending applications (if any) likewise disposed of. ¶45

Sri.K.J.P Chaudhary Vs Sri.P. Ramachandra — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant’s claim of Rs.3,24,000/- was substantiated by evidence, so as to warrant interference with the Labour Commissioner’s rejection of the claim and the Writ Court’s dismissal of the writ petition. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The claim for Rs.3,24,000/- was not substantiated by any evidence; in the absence of such evidence the Labour Commissioner dismissed the claim petition, and the Bench is unable to grant the appellant any indulgence on that claim.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

In this intra-court appeal the Bench exercises only the limited jurisdiction of judicial review.

¶37

Key takeaways

As the respondents themselves admitted Rs.92,500/- as due and payable (statement of objections dated 14.03.2012), the appellant is given liberty to approach the Labour Commissioner to realise that amount, which is to be paid with interest if not already paid.ratio¶43
The respondents were not called upon because the order proceeds on their own admission recorded in their statement of objections dated 14.03.2012.obiter¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Division Bench), High Court of Karnataka, decided 23.06.2026: The appellant’s claim of Rs.3,24,000/- before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948) in Claim Application No.14/2012-B2 had been rejected by order dated 25.07.2012 for want of any supporting evidence, and the Single Judge had dismissed W.P.No.8738/2014 on the ground of delay. Exercising only limited jurisdiction of judicial review, the Division Bench declined to grant any indulgence on the unevidenced claim. However, noting the respondents’ admission in their statement of objections dated 14.03.2012 that Rs.92,500/- remained due and payable (rent for 17.5 months’ use of the premises computed at Rs.1,22,500/-, less Rs.30,000/- paid on 08.06.2010), the Bench gave the appellant liberty to approach the Labour Commissioner to realise that amount, directing that it be paid with interest if not already paid. Writ appeal disposed of accordingly; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:30991-DB WA No. 1400 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2024 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. K.J.P. CHAUDHARY, S/O GOPAL CHODARY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, C/O RANGANATHA SHETTY, MOODUMANE HOUSE, KOLACHUR VILLAGE, NANDIKOOR POST, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 111.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SOHANI A HOLLA., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SRI.P. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OPPOSITE SARDARJEE PETROL BUNK, SUBHASHCHANDRA BOSE CIRCLE, NEAR STATE BANK ATM, KARWAR.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL), NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MANGALORE - 575 001. DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:30991-DB WA No. 1400 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:12.06.2024 PASSED IN WP No.8738/2014 (LABOUR) AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2012 IN CLAIM APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2012-B2 PASSED BY THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONERANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

Heard Madam Sohani A. Holla, learned counsel for appellant.

¶24

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.8738/2014 instituted by the appellant against the order 25.07.2012 passed the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:30991-DB WA No. 1400 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Regional Labour Commissioner-Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948¹ in claim application

¶28

No.14/2012-B2 vide Annexure-D .

¶29

3. The Regional Labour Commissioner rejected the application of the appellant for claim of an amount of Rs.3,24,000/-, as no evidence was led to substantiate the claim of the appellant for Rs.3,24,000/-. The respondentestablishment though has admitted that the appellant's premises was used from 11.06.2009 to 23.11.2010 for a period of 17.5 months, for which the rental amount would work out to Rs.1,22,500/- and against such an amount of Rs.1,22,500/-, an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 08.06.2010. The balance amount of Rs.92,500/- was due towards full and final settlement of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that even this amount of Rs.92,500/- has not been paid, though the appellant claim was for Rs.3,24,000/-.

¶30

1 "the Act of 1948 for short"

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:30991-DB WA No. 1400 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

4. We have considered the submissions. The

¶34

applicant's claim for Rs.3,24,000/- was not substantiated by leading any evidence. In the absence of the evidence to substantiate the claim for Rs.3,24,000/- the Labour Commissioner dismissed the claim petition.

¶35

5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of delay. The Authority under the Act of 1948 has considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence and

¶36

has recorded the finding that there is no proof or evidence to substantiate the claim of the appellant for Rs.3,24,000/-. In the absence of such proof/evidence, no order could have been passed on the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the same was dismissed.

¶37

6. We exercise only limited jurisdiction of judicial review.

¶38

7. When the appellant did not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim for Rs.3,24,000/-, we

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:30991-DB WA No. 1400 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

are unable to grant him any indulgence for his claim. However, we have read the statement filed by the respondent before the Regional Labour Commissioner in which they have admitted an amount of Rs.92,500/- due and payable to the appellant.

¶42

8. We therefore, give liberty to the appellant to

¶43

approach the Labour Commissioner to realize the said amount, if the respondent has already not paid to the appellant. This t Labour Commissioner should see that this amount which was admitted way back on 14.03.2012 should be paid to the appellant with interest, if already not paid.

¶44