Karnataka High Court
Maxworth Realty India Limited vs Ashok S/O. Gurushantayya Hiremath on 25 July, 2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 115994 OF 2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #12/2,
KMP HOUSE YAMUNA BAI ROAD,
MADHAVANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN &
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K. KESHAVA.
2. MAXWORTH REALTY INDIA LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE AT, JAYANAGAR,
VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN &
MANAGING DIRECTOR, K. KESHAVA.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. I. Y. PATIL, ADV.,)
AND
ASHOK S/O. GURUSHANTAYYA HIREMATH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
PLOT NO.62, MOOKAMBIKA NAGAR,
NEAR JOSHI FARM, BELAGAVI ROAD, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADV., AND SRI. S. S. BETURMATH, ADV.)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT.10.10.2019
(ANNEXURE-G) PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ACJ & JMFC, HUBBALLI
DISMISSING IA-1 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN E.P.39/18 AND
ALLOW THE SAID I.A.1.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 24.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are
judgment debtors, challenging the rejection of their
application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) by the Executing Court. The petitioners assert
that the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent-
decree holder should not be maintained before the Civil
Court, arguing that the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of
labor-related authorities.
2. Facts of the Case: The respondent-decree holder, having
been employed as a legal advisor by the petitioners, a
private limited company, filed a suit seeking recovery of
unpaid salary, conveyance allowances, and leave surrender
benefits totalling Rs.1,36,102/- for a period of 2 months and
15 days. The respondent alleged non-payment despite
multiple requests and claimed that the petitioners failed to
credit their share of the Employees Provident Fund. The suit
was decreed in favour of the respondent by the Trial Court,
and this decision was upheld by the Appellate Court.
3. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Civil Court,
arguing that the matter should be addressed by labor
authorities. However, the Executing Court correctly relied on
the Supreme Court's judgment in Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C.
(U.P.) Limited v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava1. In this
case, the Apex Court established that an advocate, when
acting in a professional capacity, does not fall under the
category of a 'workman' and therefore disputes regarding
claims for salary and benefits arising from such professional
engagements are maintainable in a Civil Court, not before
labor authorities. This judgment clarifies that since the
respondent-decree holder was employed by a private limited
company and the claim arose from this professional
relationship, the Civil Court was the appropriate forum for
adjudication.
AIR 2007 SC 519
4. The petitioner, a private limited company, contested the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court, arguing that the respondent-
decree holder should have approached labor authorities
instead. However, this contention lacks merit, as established
by the Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.)
Limited v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava. The Apex Court
held that an advocate, acting in a professional capacity,
does not qualify as a 'workman' under labor laws. Therefore,
disputes involving claims for salary and benefits arising from
such professional engagements are properly adjudicated by
a Civil Court rather than labor tribunals. Given that the
respondent was employed as a legal advisor by the
petitioners and the claim arose from this professional
relationship, the respondent was justified in seeking
recourse before the Civil Court. This position aligns with
established legal principles, reinforcing the Executing Court's
decision to reject the petitioners' objections based on
jurisdiction.
5. The Executing Court's decision to reject the petitioners'
objections was appropriate. The Court rightly noted that the
Civil Court had the jurisdiction to handle the dispute, given
the nature of the claim and the relationship between the
parties. The objections raised by the petitioners under
Section 47 of CPC regarding jurisdiction and forum are
without merit. The Civil Court's role in adjudicating the
respondent's claim for unpaid salary and benefits is justified.
6. The decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S. No. 509/2016
has attained finality and is enforceable. The Executing
Court's duty was to enforce this decree, not to revisit or
alter its terms based on jurisdictional objections. The
petitioners' arguments against the enforcement of the
decree do not present any legal basis for overturning the
Executing Court's decision.
7. Given the Supreme Court's judgment and the applicable
legal principles, the writ petition lacks merit. The Executing
Court's order is affirmed as it correctly upheld the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court and dismissed the petitioners'
objections. The petitioners are directed to comply with the
decree as enforced.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition, being devoid of
merits, is dismissed.
9. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are
disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
