M/S Vivek Shankar Architects v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WP/29033/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Architect's consultancy outside Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1961; show-cause notice under labour laws set aside; jurisdiction of Senior Labour Inspector to inspect and prosecute; inspection dated 22.04.2019; registers not maintained; L.M. Chithale v. Commissioner of Labour, AIR 1964 Mad 131 (Madras HC) relied on; Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act 1947 in pari materia; writ petition under Article 226 allowed; finding limited to 2019 spot inspection; liberty to act on post-2019 civil engineering/construction activity.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned show-cause notice dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-C) set aside. ¶¶53

M/S Vivek Shankar Architects Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned show-cause notice dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-C) set aside.

¶¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Senior Labour Inspector) had jurisdiction to inspect the petitioner's premises, to issue the notices under Annexure-C, and to make the inspection report noted at Annexure-R1. +1 more

¶¶42

Court's answer

Since the respondent lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner's consultancy premises, the impugned show-cause notice dated 18.06.2019 has to be set aside.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The consultancy activity of the petitioner/Architect does not fall under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 ('Act, 1961'); the law laid down by the Madras High Court in L.M. Chithale (supra) comes to the aid of the petitioner on this point, and no material was placed to show the petitioner was running the office to carry out civil engineering works.

¶¶45

Key takeaways

The finding recorded by the Court is confined to the alleged spot inspection of 2019 and does not extend to later activities; if the petitioner carries on any activity relating to civil engineering and construction after 2019, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take such action as advised in law.obiter¶¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde), Writ Petition No. 29033 of 2019 (L-RES), oral order dated 16.02.2026: A show-cause notice dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure-C) issued by the Senior Labour Inspector under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1961 and Rules 1963, Payment of Wages Act 1936, Minimum Wages Act 1948, Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and Equal Remuneration Act 1976 — following an inspection on 22.04.2019 which found the statutorily required registers not maintained — was challenged by an architects' firm as lacking jurisdiction. Relying on the Madras High Court decision in L.M. Chithale and Others v. The Commissioner of Labour (AIR 1964 Mad 131), and noting that no material was placed to show the petitioner carried out civil engineering works, the Court held that the consultancy activity of the petitioner/Architect does not fall under the provisions of the Act, 1961. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned notice was set aside; the finding is confined to the 2019 spot inspection, with liberty reserved to the authorities to act if the petitioner engages in civil-engineering/construction-related activity after 2019.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 29033 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S VIVEK SHANKAR ARCHITECTS, NO.2230/1, 16^TH B CROSS, D BLOCK, 8^TH MAIN, SAHAKARNAGAR, BENGALURU-560092, BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR VIVEK V SHANKAR, SON OF VIJAYSHANKAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI VASUKI K N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, Digitally OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, signed by GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, PRAMILA G V KARMIKABHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, Location: BENGALURU-560029. HIGH COURT …RESPONDENT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE IMPUGNED SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUD BY THE RESPONDENT DTD18.6.2019 [ANNEXURE-C]QUASH THE IMPUGNED SHOWCAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT DTD18.6.2019 [ANNEXURE-C].

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

¶21

This petition is filed assailing the Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2019 marked at Annexure-C. In terms of the said Show Cause Notice, Senior Labour Inspector has issued notice under the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and Rules, 1963; Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and Rules, 1963; Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Rules, 1958; Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Rules, 1973 and Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Rules, 1976.

¶22

It is stated in the said notice that when the inspection was made on 22.04.2019 at 01.30 p.m., the violations under the aforementioned Acts are noticed and the direction was issued to produce the records to establish the compliance of the provisions of the aforementioned Acts. Since

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

compliance is not made as directed, a Show Cause Notice is issued as to why a prosecution should not be launched against the petitioner.

¶27

Learned Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection to contend that the petition is premature and is to be dismissed and the petitioner has to respond to the Show Cause Notice marked at Annexure-C. Along with the statement of objection, the learned Government Advocate has also produced the inspection report dated 22.04.2019 wherein it is stated that the registers required to be maintained under the aforementioned Acts have not been maintained by the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that though the petition is filed challenging the Show Cause Notice, the respondent has no authority to issue the Show Case Notice, as such, the jurisdictional issue is raised and the Writ Petition can be entertained.

¶29

Learned counsel would also submit that the issue raised by the petition is covered in terms of the judgment of

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the Madras High Court in L.M.Chithale and Others vs. The Commissioner of Labour¹ .

¶34

It is also his submission that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947 are in pari materia with the provisions of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1961 (for short 'Act, 1961') and the premises of the petitioner which is used as Architect's consultancy cannot be subjected to the provisions of Act, 1961 and cannot be termed as Act under the Act, 1961.

¶35

Learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition on the premise that on the date of inspection, the necessary records were not maintained in the premises as such the petition is not maintainable.

¶36

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶37

Since the petitioner has raised the jurisdictional question before this Court, the Court is required to consider whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to inspect the

¶38

1 AIR 1964 Mad 131

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

premises and to issue notices as issued under Annexure-C and whether the respondent had the jurisdiction to make inspection report as noted under Annexure- R1.

¶43

It is stated by the petitioner that he is an Architect by profession and is not carrying on any construction activities and his role is only confined to consultancy and preparing the designs.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not placed any materials to show that the petitioner was running the office to carry out civil engineering works.

¶45

Under these circumstances, the law laid down by the Madras High Court in L.M.Chithale and Others (supra) comes to the aid of the petitioner to hold that the consultancy activity of the petitioner/Architect does not fall under the provisions of the Act, 1961.

¶46

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned notice has to be set aside.

¶47

Hence, the following:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:9267 WP No. 29033 of 2019

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶53

(ii) The impugned notice dated 18.06.2019 is setaside.

¶54

(iii) The finding recorded by this Court is only in relation to the alleged spot inspection which has taken place in the year 2019 and not in respect of any other activities which might have taken place after 2019.

¶55

(iv) It is made clear that, in case the petitioner is carrying on any activity which is related to civil engineering and construction, after 2019 then the respondent authorities are at liberty to take such action as advised in law.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶58

GVP

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

M/S Vivek Shankar Architects v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Vivek Shankar Architects 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

Mahadev Sanganabasappa Sampagar Vs the Addl. Commissioner Provident Fund

The Management Vs Balachandra

Mr v D Rajanna Vs Smt T R Rashmi

The Executive Engineer (v) Vs Manjunath

Sri B N Ramachandra Vs Arya Vyshya Mandali

Taj Parveen Vs Ezazulla Shariff