Sri. Mahesh M Vs the Principal Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. Mahesh M Vs the Principal Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part: impugned award dated 14.12.2018 in I.I.D.No.9/2017 (Labour Court, Mysuru) set aside; matter remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; parties directed to appear before the Labour Court on 25.03.2026 without any further notice; Registry to send back the records forthwith; merits not entered and all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-workman was employed by the respondent establishment or through a contractor (M/s Padmakumari Enterprises), and whether the Labour Court erred in holding that he was working under a contractor despite no document substantiating that contention being produced. +1 more

Court's answer

No agreement was produced before the Court showing that the respondent hired the petitioner through a labour contractor; although attendance-type documents (Ex.M5 onwards) indicate the petitioner worked under M/s Padmakumari Enterprises with labour contract charges payable by AMW-MGM Forgings Private Limited, Ex.M4 is only a proposal to supply manpower comprising security persons and drivers, and it cannot straightaway be concluded that Ex.M4 was a contract to supply a Fork Lift driver absent specific evidence — this aspect was not considered by the Labour Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Labour Court did not consider the legal effect of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner; it held the petitioner to be working through contractor M/s Padmakumari Enterprises without analysing those documents, whereas it was required to consider their legal effect.

Key takeaways

The documents produced by the petitioner were not seriously disputed: the Employees' State Insurance Corporation policy names the employer as Sideforgerossi India Private Limited; the identity card was issued by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru; Ex.MW.7 (letter issued by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited) indicates the petitioner worked as a Fork Lift Operator since 01.06.2006; the establishment was earlier owned by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru and is now owned by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited.ratio¶16
Without entering into the merits of the matter and keeping all contentions open, the Court allowed the writ petition in part: set aside the impugned award dated 14.12.2018 in I.I.D.No.9/2017, remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directed the parties to appear before the Labour Court on 25.03.2026 without any further notice, and ordered the Registry to send back the records forthwith.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), 17.02.2026, Anant Ramanath Hegde J. — WRIT PETITION NO. 28965 OF 2019 (L-RES); Sri Mahesh M v The Principal Manager (presently General Manager), M/s Siderforgerossi India Pvt Ltd. The award dated 14.12.2018 of the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D. No.9/2017, which dismissed under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the petitioner-workman's claim on the footing that he was employed through a contractor (M/s Padmakumari Enterprises) and was not a workman of the respondent, was set aside. The High Court observed that no agreement was produced proving engagement through a labour contractor; that Ex.M4 was merely a proposal to supply security persons and drivers and could not straightaway be treated as a contract to supply a Fork Lift driver absent specific evidence; and that the Labour Court failed to consider the legal effect of the petitioner's documents — the ESIC policy naming Sideforgerossi India Private Limited as employer, the identity card issued by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru, and Ex.MW.7 indicating employment as Fork Lift Operator since 01.06.2006. Without entering into the merits and keeping all contentions open, the writ petition was allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; parties to appear on 25.03.2026 without further notice.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 28965 OF 2019 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MAHESH M, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, SON OF SRI MAHADEVA SETTY, R/AT NO.57-A, MANGALA-2 VILLAGE AND POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DIST, PIN-571 115.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI NAIK V S., ADVOCATE) AND:

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE PRINCIPAL MANAGER, (PRESENTLY THE GENERAL MANAGER), M/S SIDERFORGEROSSI INDIA PVT LTD NO.82-84, BELAGOLA INDUSTRIAL AREA K R S ROAD, METAGALLI POST, MYSURU-570016.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI R RAVI AND M C MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATES) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU PERTAINING AT ANNEXURE-C AND GRANT THE PETITIONERQUASH THE AWARD DTD14.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU IN I.I.D. NO.9/2017 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C SINCE THE LABOUR COURT HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDSDIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WORKMAN IN HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH FULL

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

BACK WAGES CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 14.12.2018 in IID.No.9/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru.

In terms of the said award, the claim petition under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') is dismissed holding that the petitioner is not a workman under the respondent. The Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is employed through a contractor and accordingly has held that the relief cannot be claimed against the respondent.

Aggrieved by the said award, the petitionerworkman is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the documents marked at Ex.W.7 and Ex.W.8. The document at Ex.W.7 is the letter dated 28.11.2016 issued by the respondent

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

and Ex.W.8 is the Identity card of the petitioner signed by the Director and Chief Executive Officer of the respondent - Establishment.

Referring to the letter dated 28.11.2016, it is urged that the petitioner was working as Fork Lift Operator since 01.06.2006. It is also urged that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the petitioner was working under the independent contractor is also untenable as no such document is produced to substantiate the contention.

It is further urged that the document which is relied upon by the Labour Court to conclude that the petitioner was working under Padmakumari-the proprietor of M/s Padmakumari Enterprises is incorrect approach as said Padmakumari is not examined to prove the authenticity of the said document.

It is also urged that there is a prohibition to employ the Fork lift drivers through contractors.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

Thus, it is urged that the Labour Court committed

an error in holding that the petitioner was working under contractor.

There is no representation on behalf of the

respondent.

The Court has perused the impugned award as well as the documents placed on record on both sides.

Admittedly, no agreement is produced before the Court to show that the respondent had hired the petitioner through labour contractor. Though the document at Ex.M4 reveals that M/s Padmakumari Enterprises has proposed to supply manpower to the respondent -Establishment, it is to be noticed that the proposal is to supply the security persons and drivers. Ex.M5 is the attendance register for the month of August - 2009. It records name of the petitioner as having worked for 27 days and the said document also speaks about the labour contract charges to be paid by AMW-MGM Forgings Private Limited, Mysuru. Similar documents for the month of September-2009 to April-2017 are produced. These documents

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

indicate that the petitioner was working under M/s. Padmakumari Enterprises.

Ex.W4 - is identity card issued by AMW-MGM

Forgings Private Limited, Mysuru. Ex.W5 is the temporary identity card issued by Employee State Insurance Corporation and name of the employee is shown as M.Mahesh. Ex.W7 is the certificate issued by the respondent and said certificate dated 28.11.2016 reveals that the petitioner is employed as Fork Lift driver with effect from 01.06.2006.

It is urged that the certificate issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation is in the nature of a Statutory document and carries more weight compared to the documents produced the respondent.

It is seen that the Labour Court has not considered the legal effect of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner.

In addition, it is also required to be noticed that the Ex.M4 is only a proposal to supply the manpower. And said proposal is to supply security personnel and drivers. It is to be

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

noticed that the petitioner was working as Fork Lift driver. It is not possible to straightaway conclude that Ex.M4 is a contract to supply the Fork Lift driver unless there is specific evidence in this behalf. This aspect is also not considered by the Labour Court.

The petitioner to substantiate his contention that he was working under the respondents has produced the policy issued by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation. The employer's name is mentioned as Sideforgerossi India Private Limited. The identity card issued by the respondent would also reveal that the said card is issued by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru. Ex.MW.7 is the letter issued by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited which would indicate that the petitioner is working as Fork Lift Operators since 01.06.2006. It is submitted that earlier the respondent - Establishment was owned by AMW MGM, Private Limited, Mysuru and now it is owned by Sideforgerossi India Private Limited.

These documents are not seriously disputed. The Labour Court held that the petitioner was working through a contractor namely M/s. Padmakumari Enterprises without

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7562 WP No. 28965 of 2019

HC-KAR

analysing the legal effect of the documents produced by the petitioner. The Labour Court was also required to consider the legal effect of the documents produced by the petitioner.

Hence, without entering into the merits of the matter, keeping all contentions open, the following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part .

(ii) The impugned award dated 14.12.2018 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.9/2017 is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

(iv) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 25.03.2026 without any further notice.

(v) Registry to send back the records forthwith.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23