Disposed¶136

R Neelamma v. the Registrar

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WA/2045/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reinstatement of daily-wage workmen; Section 25-F Industrial Dispute Act 1947 violation; Section 2(s) 'workman'; Section 2(j) 'industry'; Government reference under Section 10(1)(c); Labour Court award dated 02.05.2015 in Reference No.20/2013; Karnataka State Open University; W.P. No.39006/2015; implementation of award; 24 versus 32 workmen; writ appeal disposed; NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB.

What did the court decide?

Clarification that the 32 workmen (whose award the Single Judge had not set aside) are entitled to take appropriate proceedings to get the Labour Court award implemented; the writ appeal stands disposed of. ¶136

R Neelamma Vs the Registrar — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 2045 OF 2025 (L-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

R NEELAMMA

¶10

W/O D.S. BABU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KURABURU VILLAGE AND POST, T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶11

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

¶12

M.S. DIVYA D/O LATE SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.9, 2ND CROSS, HEBBAL, 2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570001.

¶13

3. D.S. DINAKAR

¶14

S/O SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DASANUR VILLAGE AND POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶15

ASHOKABALU

¶16

S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.1575, CH-9, 3RD CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE DISTRICT

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

M.MANJULA D/O MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.34, OPPOSITE OF MANCHAMMA TEMPLE, B.M. SRINAGAR, METAGALLI MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶20

K.PARAMESHA S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.2470, 5TH MAIN ROAD, KAILASHAPURAM, MANDIMOHALLA MYSORE-570001.

¶21

M.L.VIVEK, S/O P.MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.CH-45, 9TH CROSS, NEW MODEL HOUSE, ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶22

S.VISHAL S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.LIG 45, R.S. NAIDU NAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶23

N.VENKATACHALA S/O LATE NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.33, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, VINAYAKA NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶24

R.PRATHAP S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.4163, 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

M.MAHESHKUMAR S/O B.N. MAHADEVU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.134, EWS KHB COLONY, 2ND STAGE, UDAYAGIRI, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶28

PRUTHVIRAJ A/O BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1936, 13TH CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶29

SOMASHEKAR S/O RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, BEHIND GOVT. SCHOOL, 1ST CROSS, HINKAL, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶30

G.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.229, G BLOCK, 7TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶31

K.JAI SHANKAR S/O KEMPASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.1544, 3RD CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶32

JAI SHANKAR S/O B.RAGHAVA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.1544/1, 3RD CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶33

T. KENCHAPPA

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

S/O THOPANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.168, 3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SHARADADEVI NAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶38

G.SHANKAR S/O LATE GALAGALLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.1519, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶39

M.SHOBHA

¶40

D/O LATE MALAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.1509, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKPURAM, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶41

N.ARTHI D/O NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, BAVI ROAD, VINAYAKANAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶42

B.K.ASHOKA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.59, BELAGULI VILLAGE, KOTTAGALU POST, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571511.

¶43

C.LOKESHA S/O CHIKKAKULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GUGAREDODDI, GANALU POST, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA-571511.

¶44

S.MAHADEVASWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANNA,

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.2138, 1ST CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶48

T.M.ASHOK S/O MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.32/1, 2ND CROSS, 2ND STAGE, VISHVESHWARA NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶49

B.PRASAD S/O P.BETTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.119, GOKULAM, 4TH STAGE, MANJUNTHA PURA, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶50

G.MURAGESH S/O R.GURUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 2ND STAGE, 30 CROSS, DHARMASING COLOY, VISHWESHWAR NAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶51

T.UMESH S/O THOPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, BABY VILLAGE, BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA-571401.

¶52

…APPELLANTS

¶53

(BY SRI. BOLA VEDVYAS SHENOY., ADVOCATE)

¶54

AND:

¶55

THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY,

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

MANASA GANGOTHRI, MYSORE-570001.

¶59

M.NAGARAJU S/O MARIBASAVAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, NO.341, NAGARATHNA NIVASA 2ND CROSS, BOGADHI 2ND STAGE, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶60

K.SATHISH KUMAR S/O LATE C.KRISHNA AGED 38 YEARS, NO.2112, 12TH CROSS, MARUTHI TENT ROAD, JANATHA NAGARA, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶61

M.K.BILIGIRI S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MALAKUNDI VILLAGE, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶62

K.MALLIKARJUNA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.781, JANATHANAGAR, BOGADHI 2ND STAGE, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶63

THRIVENI.S W/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT KONANUR VILLAGE AND POST, BIG TANK ROAD, ARAKALGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶64

R.PRABHAKAR

¶65

S/O B.D. RAMACHANDRAIAH

¶66

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.81, 7TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, K.R.VANAM, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶69

H.M.MAHESH S/O LATE CHIKKAMALIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, HOREYALA VILLAGE AND POST, BEGUR HOBLI, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJ NAGAR DISTRICT-570001.

¶70

B.R.HARISH S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.31, HINKAL, BEHIND CAUVERY GRAMEENA BANK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶71

PUTTASWAMY S/O BASURI MADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.537, KARAPANA KOPPALU, SRIRANGAPATANA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶72

C.R. MANJUNATHA S/O RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, CHIKKAHANSOGE VILLAGE, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶73

A.N.PRABHAKAR S/O NAGARAJSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.146, AMBAGARAHALLY, KOMANAHALLY POST, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.

¶74

N.KANTHARAJ

¶75

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

S/O LATE NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.2310, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN, PADUVARALLI, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶78

SHIVAKUMAR.K S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, 18TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶79

R.SRINIVASA S/O LATE RANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.73, MADEVAPURA MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶80

S.MANJUNATH S/O SATHISH.M AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.4016, 6TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶81

P.NAGESH S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.7584/5, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶82

R.KUMAR S/O RAMU.B, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.470, SHARADAMBA CONVENT ROAD, KESARE 3RD STAGE, R.S. NAIDUNAGARA MYSORE-570001.

¶83

M.C. ANILKUMAR

¶84

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

S/O LATE CHALUVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.4163/A, 3RD MAIN, 9TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MYSORE-570001.

¶88

C.SHILAJA D/O CHOWDAIAH, R/AT NO.1519, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKA PURAM MYSORE-570001.

¶89

M.N. KRISHNAVENI D/O LATE NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT 35/1, BHIRAVESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, JAYALAIKMIPURAM, MYSORE-570001.

¶90

P.SRINIVAS S/O PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, P./AT NO.1526, 2ND CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSORE--570001.

¶91

G.V. SHIVAKUMAR S/O VEERMADASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, GUGAREDODDI, GANALU POST, KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571511.

¶92

VENKATARAJAIAH M.P. S/O PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, MALKUNDI VILLAGE, HURA POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570001.

¶93

SWAMY M S/O LATE MANIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, DOORA VILLAGE AND POST,

¶94

10 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-570001.

¶98

…RESPONDENTS

¶99

(BY SRI. RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶100

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 03.02.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 39006/2015 (L-RES) IN SO FAR AS THE OBSERVATION IN PARA 4 WITH RESPECT TO THE APPELLANTS ARE CONCERNED, ETC.

¶101

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

¶102

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

¶103

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶104

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

¶105

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning

¶106

the judgment and order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.39006/2015.

¶107

The 56 workmen claiming to have worked in the respondent-University have raised the industrial dispute alleging that their services came to be terminated by the respondent-University in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'). The Government of Karnataka in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act had made a reference to the Labour

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Court. The Labour Court on completion of the pleadings framed

¶112

the following issues for determination.

¶113

"i. Whether the First Party Workmen prove that the Second Party is an Industry u/s 2(j) of the I.D.Act?

¶114

ii. Whether the First Party workmen prove that they have been illegally terminated from service o 22.02.2010?

¶115

iii. Whether the First Party workmen are entitled to the reliefs?

¶116

iv. What order or Award?"

¶117

Before the Labour Court, the 56 workmen were

¶118

examined and documents Exhibits-W1 to W87 were marked in

¶119

support of their case. On behalf of the Management, one witness (MW.1) was examined and Exhibits M1 to M18 were marked. The claims of the 56 workmen were examined. The Tribunal has stated that 56 workmen had been working continuously with the respondent-University on daily wage basis till 22.02.2010. However, all of 56 workmen had put in

¶120

more than 240 days in a calendar year before their services were abruptly terminated on 22.02.2010. There was no appointment letter issued in favour of any of the workmen and

¶121

12 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

no advertisement was published in the newspaper inviting applications for recruitment.

¶125

Furthermore, the workmen did not possess copies

¶126

of any applications seeking appointment filed before the Management or the University nor did they know whether the Management or the University maintained any attendance registers for the daily wagers. However, despite this evidence, the Labour Court held that the contents of the Exhibits W1 to W87 demonstrated that the 56 workmen were working as daily wagers in the respondent-University. Some of the workmen had also submitted their experience certificates at Ex.W1 to Ex.W4, 12, 51, 52, 56 to 58, 65 to 68, 70, 71, 73 and 74. However, it is clear from these documents that not all the 56 workmen in whose favour the award was passed produced the experience certificate. Nonetheless, based on the evidence adduced by the workmen, the Labour Court concluded that 56 workmen worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year in the employment of the respondent-University and they would fall within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the ID Act as 'workmen'.

¶127

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

The Labour Court, therefore, concluded that the termination of the employment of 56 workmen was in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The Labour Court, vide award dated 02.05.2015 passed in Reference No.20/2013, directed the University to reinstate 56 workmen within two months from the date of the award, however, the workmen would not be entitled for backwages.

¶130

The aforesaid award came to be challenged by the University in W.P. No.39006/2015. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.02.2024 considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-University that 24 workmen had worked with University, directed the University to provide employment to 24 workmen who according to the stand of the University had worked in the University. However, in respect of the other 32 workmen, the learned Single Judge directed that it would be open for them to take appropriate proceedings for appointment.

¶131

The learned Single Judge has not set aside the award in respect of the 32 workmen, therefore, we make it

¶132

14 -

¶133

NC: 2026:KHC:7973-DB WA No. 2045 of 2025

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

clear that they are entitled to take appropriate proceedings to

¶136

get the award implemented. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands

¶137

disposed of.

¶138

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶139

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶140

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and final order dated 03.02.2023 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.39006/2015 (L-RES), challenged insofar as the observation in para 4 with respect to the appellants is concerned; the Single Judge had directed the University to provide employment to 24 workmen and left the other 32 workmen open to take appropriate proceedings for appointment.¶100
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 03.02.2023
Prior proceeding
56 workmen claiming to have worked in the respondent-University raised an industrial dispute alleging their services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.¶107
Prior proceeding
The Government of Karnataka, exercising its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act, made a reference of the dispute to the Labour Court.¶107
Prior proceeding
On completion of pleadings, the Labour Court framed four issues, including whether the Second Party is an 'industry' under Section 2(j), whether the workmen were illegally terminated on 22.02.2010, entitlement to reliefs, and the order/award.¶113
Prior proceeding
Before the Labour Court, the 56 workmen were examined and documents Exhibits W1 to W87 were marked in support of their case.¶118
Prior proceeding
On behalf of the Management, one witness (MW.1) was examined and Exhibits M1 to M18 were marked.¶119
Prior proceeding
The Tribunal stated that the 56 workmen had been working continuously with the respondent-University on daily wage basis till 22.02.2010.¶119
Prior proceeding
Based on the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the 56 workmen worked more than 240 days in a calendar year and fell within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the ID Act as 'workmen'.¶126
Prior proceeding
The Labour Court concluded that the termination of the employment of the 56 workmen was in violation of Section 25-F of the ID Act.¶129
Prior proceeding
Vide award dated 02.05.2015 in Reference No.20/2013, the Labour Court directed the University to reinstate the 56 workmen within two months from the date of the award.¶129
Prior proceeding
However, the workmen were not held entitled to backwages in the award.¶129
Prior proceeding
The University challenged the award in W.P. No.39006/2015; the learned Single Judge, considering the University's submission that 24 workmen had worked with it, directed the University to provide employment to those 24 workmen.¶130
Prior proceeding
In respect of the other 32 workmen, the learned Single Judge directed that it would be open for them to take appropriate proceedings for appointment.¶130

R Neelamma v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Neelamma v. the Registrar

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

Sri Keshava Bhat K Vs the Assistant Commissioner

A Gopalakrishna Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C S Sundar Raju Vs Smt Hajeera @ Hajira

Smt. Tayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. J. v. Venkatesh Vs the Chief Secretary

Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha Vs Priyanka N