Karnataka High Court
Akkamahadevi Mahila Universtiy ... vs Ravi on 12 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 202779 OF 2022 (L-ID)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 201945 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201962 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201963 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201966 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201981 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 201991 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 202017 OF 2023 (L-ID)
WRIT PETITION NO. 202027 OF 2023 (L-ID)
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI IN WP.NO.202779/2022:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA-586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAPURA-586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
PRIYA D/O RAJU KAMBLE,
AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ,A) TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED
IN REFERENCE NO.6/2020 DATED 07-02-2022 BY THE LABOUR
COURT AT VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B) TO ISSUE WRIT
OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE.
IN WP.NO. 201945/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
RAVI S/O PUNAJI KAMBLE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O.RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYINGTO A) TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED
IN REFERENCE NO.16/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY THE
LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B) TO
ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP.NO. 201962/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA-586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
SMT. ASHA W/O RAVI KAMBLE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE ORDER AS FOLLOWS. A) TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED IN REFERENCE
NO. 15/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY THE LABOUR COURT AT
VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE- A. B) TO ISSUE WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP.NO. 201963/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
SMT. KASTURI W/O RAJU KAMBLE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO. 14/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY
THE LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B) TO
ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP.NO. 201966/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAPURA - 586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS RGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
KAILASH S/O DIVAKAR HATANGALE,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA- 586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO. 10/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY
THE LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE- A. B)
TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP. NO. 201981/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA- 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
SAPNA D/O RAJU KAMBLE,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.11/2020 DATED.07.02.2022 BY
THE LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
B) TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP. 201991/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAPURA - 586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
AJAY S/O RAMA HATANGALE,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.9/2020 DATED 07-02-2022 BY THE
LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A; B) TO
ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP. NO. 202017/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAPURA - 586101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
SMT. USHA W/O MOHAN LONDE,
AGE:33 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA, CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL ,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.12/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY
THE LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA,VIDE ANNEXURE-A. B) TO
ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
IN WP. NO. 202027/2023:
BETWEEN:
1. AKKAMAHADEVI MAHILA UNIVERSTIY,
VIJAYAPURA, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR.
2. KARNATAKA STATE AKKAMAHADEVI
WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY,
VIJAYAPURA - 586 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA REDDY,ADVOCATE)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
AND:
SMT. TARA
W/O SURESH MANGARBWADI,
AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. RANI BAGICHA,
CMC COLONY,
STATION ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. VILAS KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI NITESH PADIYAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A)
TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED IN REFERENCE NO. 13/2020 DATED 07.02.2022 BY
THE LABOUR COURT AT VIJAYAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE- A. B)
TO ISSUE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED FIT TO
THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
WP No. 202779 of 2022
C/W WP No. 201945 of 2023
WP No. 201962 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
The petitioner-University being the common in all
these writ petitions, respondents-Workmen are the
employees whose termination has been put in issue, these
writ petitions are taken up for analogous hearing and
disposal as they give rise to common questions of fact and
law.
2. The petitioner-University is before this Court in
these writ petitions being aggrieved by the order dated
07.02.2022 on the file of the Presiding Officer Labour
Court, Vijayapura (for short, 'the Labour Court') in
Reference No.6/2020. In terms of which while allowing the
petitions filed by the respondents-Workmen under Section
10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,
'the I.D.Act') the Labour Court has declared the oral
termination of the services of its employees made by
petitioner-University on 02.02.2017 as null and void. The
petitioner-University has been further directed to reinstate
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
the respondents-Workmen into service with full back
wages and with continuity of service of petitioner-
University from 02.02.2017.
3. The aforesaid reference-petitions were filed by
the respondents-Workmen herein under Section 10(1)(C)
of the I.D.Act, contending inter alia that they were initially
appointed by the petitioner-University herein as Sweepers
on daily wages effective from the year 2013 and that they
continued to work diligently and sincerely till their services
were illegally terminated on 02.02.2017 without any valid
reasons.
4. That the respondents-Workmen had served
more than 240 days during 12 calendar months as
contemplated under Section 25(B) of the I.D.Act. As such,
it was imperative on the part of the petitioner-University
to have complied with the mandatory requirement of
provisions of Section 25(F)(a)(b)(c) of the I.D.Act. As
such, the action of the petitioner-University in terminating
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
the services of the respondents-Workmen amounts to
retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(O.O) of the
I.D.Act. Hence, the respondents-Workmen herein sought
for declaration that the termination dated 02.02.2017 was
null and void and for consequent relief of reinstatement
with fruitful back wages.
5. The petitioner-University filed its written
statement/objections to the main petition contending that
the petitioner-University was not an industry as per
Section 2(j) of the I.D.Act, therefore, reference-petitions
were not maintainable. It is contented that the
respondents-Workmen served under the petitioner-
University as "Safayee Karmachari" on daily wage basis.
That they were not terminated from service, but had
voluntarily submitted their letter dated 02.06.2017
intending quit as they were unable to carryout the work
entrusted to them. That there is no sanction post of
'Safayee Karmachari'. As such, the question of granting
relief of reinstatement or continuity of service as sought
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
for would not arise. The claim of the respondents-
Workmen of they having continued to work for 240 days
during 12 calendar months had also been denied.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Labour Court
framed the following issues for its consideration (same
issues and addl. issues in all references) :
1. Whether the petitioner proves that the dispute
is an industrial dispute?
2. What order?
Addl. Issue
1. Whether oral removal of the petitioner by the
respondent from 02.02.2017 without giving
any notice from the service is justifiable?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs
sought in the petition?
7. Evidence were led by the respective parties.
Respondents-Workmen examined themselves as PW.1 and
got marked 7 (seven) documents as Exs.P1 to P7 and one
Prof.Dr.R.Sundandamma, the Registrar of petitioner-
University was examined as RW.1 and got marked 3
(three) documents as Exs.R1 to R3.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
8. On consideration of pleadings and the evidence
led the Labour Court had answered the issues raised in the
affirmative holding that there existed relationship of
employer and employee and the petitioner-University
herein, being the industry, the reference-petitions were
maintainable and consequently allowed the petitions by its
award dated 07.02.2022 as noted above. Being aggrieved
by the same, the petitioner-University is before this Court.
9. Learned counsel Sri.Ravindra Reddy, at the
outset submits that the Labour Court failed to appreciate
the fact that the petitioner-University had engaged the
services of the respondents-Workmen through a contractor
and they had no relationship of employer and employee.
He submits that there was no control or supervision by the
petitioner-University over the respondents-Workmen. This
elementary requirement has been ignored by the Labour
Court.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
10. He refers to a Memo dated 06.09.2022
produced in all these writ petitions along with three
documents, namely,
1) Agenda of Syndicate Proceedings
dated 04.08.2011;
2) Syndicate Proceedings;
3) List of Karmacharis as per Tender contract
placed before the Syndicate.
11. Referring to said documents, learned counsel
submits that as far back as on 04.08.2011, a resolution
was passed by the petitioner-University, proposing to
engage the services of certain Sri.S.G.Hallur and in
furtherance thereof, he was awarded the tender contract.
Consequently, the said S.G.Hallur, supplied the
respondents-Workmen for Safayee Karmachari on daily
wage basis. He submits that the said aspect of the matter
has not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court
while arriving at a conclusion of there being a relationship
of employer and employee between the petitioner-
University and the respondents-Workmen. He submits that
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
since the respondents were engaged through the
contractor, they cannot claim to be reinstated with back
wages and continuity of services.
12. He further submits that even if the termination
held to be void, the petitioner-University is ready and
willing as an alternate remedy to pay amount, as one time
compensation instead of reinstatement. Hence, seeks for
allowing of the writ petitions.
13. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the
following judgments;
(1) Lenin Kumar Ray vs. M/s Express
Publications (Madurai) Ltd reported in AIR
Online 2024 SC 689;
(2) Deputy Executive Engineer vs. Kuberbhai
Kanjibhai reported in AIR 2019 SC 517;
(3) The Managing Director and Others vs.
Sri.N.Devaraj and Others in
W.A.No.1312/2021 DD:06.02.2023.
14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents-Workmen on the other hand submits that the
petitioner-University had taken inconsistent stand before
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
the Labour Court. While initially it contended that the
respondents-Workmen were employed as daily wage
employees, who themselves had voluntarily resigned from
the employment, subsequently the petitioner-University
contended they not being its employees.
15. That the Labour Court on appreciation of
documentary and oral evidence, has come to categoric
conclusion of petitioner-University being the employer and
the respondents-Workmen being employees, which finding
is since based on the material evidence cannot be
interfered with. That admittedly respondents-Workmen
were working as daily wage employees and their
reinstatement would restore the status quo ante with all
the benefits, which they are entitled to. He submits that
even after the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner-
University has not complied with the statutory requirement
of Section 17(B) of the Act.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
16. He also files a Memo dated 11.11.2025 along
with an office order issued by the petitioner-University and
submits that the petitioner-University now has called upon
the respondents-Workmen to rejoin the work as Safayee
Karmachari. As such, the conduct of the petitioner-
University estops them from pursuing the present writ
petitions, but to comply with the order passed by the
Labour Court.
17. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the
following judgments:
(1) Devinder Singh vs. Municipal Council,
Sanaur reported in AIR 2011 SC 2532;
(2) H.M.P.Cements Ltd. And another vs.
Karnataka Electricity Board and others
reported in ILR 2007 Kant 1928 (KAR);
(3) Management of State Bank of India vs.
V.M.Mahapurush reported in 1994 (69)FLR
1051.
18. Heard. Perused the records.
19. The vehement submissions now being urged by
the learned counsel for the petitioner-University is non-
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
consideration of the case of the petitioner-University,
namely, respondents-Workmen being engaged by the
petitioner-University through one independent contractor.
20. Perusal of written statement cum objections to
the main petition filed by the petitioner-University before
the Labour Court in the reference proceedings would
indicate that no such ground has been taken by the
petitioner-University. Paragraph No.4 of the written
statement/objections is extracted hereunder:
"4. The averments made in the petition para
2 are denied that petitioner was initially appointed as
a sweeper on daily wages since 2013. It is false that
the petitioner was working in the respondent
University honestly and satisfactorily, as well an
uninterruptedly and continuously, till she was
arbitrarily and wrongly terminated orally from
services on 02.02.2017, without any valid reasons. It
is submitted, the petitioner has served under
respondent University as "Safaee Karmachari" (for
bath rooms and toilet cleaning), on daily wages
under hand receipt payments (Form no.PWG-34).
She and other ten persons were not terminated by
the respondent University, but they voluntarily
submitted letter dtd:02.06.2017, as they are unable
to carry out the work entrusted to them, any further
and stopped attending the duties. Since then
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
onwards they did not turn to university for attending
their duties."
21. During the cross-examination, certain
suggestions have been made to the witnesses regarding
their services having been engaged through a contractor,
which has been stoutly denied.
22. Management witness has categorically admitted
that on and after 2013, the petitioner-University has been
crediting the salaries of the respondents-Workmen directly
into their Bank Accounts.
23. These pleading and the evidence on record
persuaded the Labour Court to conclude the existence of
relationship of employer and employees between
petitioner-University and the respondents-Workmen. The
said finding or conclusion based on the pleading and
evidence led by the parties, in the absence of any
perversity or illegality being pointed out cannot be
interfered in the writ proceedings.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
24. As regards the documents now sought to be
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner-
University is concerned, there is no application filed
seeking production of the said documents or providing any
explanation of they not being able to produce the said
documents before the Labour Court.
25. That apart, it is settled principle of law that in
the absence of pleading no amount of evidence/proof is
admissible. Since there is no whisper in the written
statement/objections by the petitioner-University
regarding respondents-Workmen having been engaged as
"Safaee Kamachari" through a contractor, even if the said
documents did exist, the same are of no use in the
absence of pleading. The purpose of this is not far to seek.
Such pleadings would have afforded opportunity for the
respondents-Workmen to counter the same. At this
belated stage, this Court refrains from relying upon the
same as sought to be insisted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner-University.
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
26. Reliance placed on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner-University on to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of Kuberbhai Kanjibhai (supra) is of no
avail inasmuch as the facts involved in the said matter was
that the workman who had worked as a daily wager had
raised the dispute before the Labour Court after 15 years
of alleged termination. It is under the said circumstances,
the Apex Court had accepted the plea of lump sum amount
being paid as the just compensation.
27. In the case of Lenin Kumar Ray (supra), the
issue was with regard to appointment of a Junior Engineer
who was promoted as Assistant Engineer on the
administrative side and on termination, the said employee
had accepted the cheque paid towards one month's salary
in lieu of notice. It is under thus said circumstances, the
Apex Court affirmed the order of the High Court insofar as
the award being set aside to reinstate the employee in
service and to pay the compensation of Rs.75,000/- in lieu
of bank wages.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
28. As regards the order of the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of N.Devaraj (supra), the said
appeal was by the Management against the order of the
learned Single Judge, which had directed for payment of
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of full and final
settlement of their claim. The writ petition in the said
proceedings had been filed by the workman, whose
reference had been answered against the workman.
29. The facts narrated above in the instant case are
completely different and distinct from the one involved in
the aforesaid orders and judgment relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner-University.
30. Learned counsel for the petitioner-University at
the juncture submits that the order of the Labour Court
directing for the back wages and continuity of service may
not apply in the instant case inasmuch as the petitioners
were daily wage employees and would be entitled only
against the work done.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6759
HC-KAR AND 6 OTHERS
31. Learned Senior Counsel fairly submits that
between the period from 2017 till passing of award by the
Labour Court reinstating them, they may not be entitled
for wages as they did not work.
32. The submission taken on record.
33. With the above observations, the writ petitions
are dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
