Karnataka High Court
Saleem Javed vs The Management Of on 17 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 19182 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SALEEM JAVED S/O ABOOBAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.59/2/66,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
SARAKKI VILLAGE, 11TH CROSS,
JUNJAPPA NILAYA, BENGALURU-560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SALEEM JAVED - PARTY-IN-PERSON/PETITIONER)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S NETTAKALLAPPA AQUATIC CENTRE,
47/1/40, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 061.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR 2. SMT. SUJATHA TILAK KUMAR,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI DIRECTOR, M/S NETTAKALLAPPA AQUATIC CENTRE,
Location: HIGH 47/1/40, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
PADMANABHA NAGAR,
Date: 2025.11.19
12:54:20 +0530
BENGALURU-560 061.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.C. RAVI, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. PAVAN SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS IN ID 06/2020 IN THE FILE OF SECOND
ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND GRANT THE
PETITIONER THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTIN QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER AND AWARD DATED 30/12/2023 IN
ID/06/2020 PASSED BY SECOND ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT
PRODUCED AS "ANNEXURE-A" AS THE SAID ORDER SUFFERS
FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND
DECLARE THE PETITIONER AS "WORKMAN".
B) DECLARE THAT THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED
11/11/2019 "ANNEXURE-D" ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
WORKMAN AS ILLEGAL, STIGMATIC AND VIOLATIVE OF
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
C) ISSUE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT
MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH FULL
BACKWAGES, WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICES, AND ALL
OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03/09/2025, AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner appearing in person is assailing the
order dated 30.12.2023 in I.D. No.6/2020 passed by the II
Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of the
impugned order, the Labour Court has held that the
petitioner is not a 'Workman' as defined under Section
2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
1947'). Consequently, the Labour Court has held that the
reference is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction.
2. Certain facts necessary for adjudication of the
dispute are referred to below.
3. Petitioner joined the respondent-Establishment
in the year 2018 as Pool Manager. The respondent is
running an aquatic centre which has a swimming school.
The appointment letter dated 03.12.2018, apart from
revealing his total pay of Rs.47,800/- which includes basic
pay of Rs.21,510/- would also reveal the duties to be
performed by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute,
alleging that on 02.11.2019 he was forced to submit
resignation letter as the management threatened that the
petitioner will be terminated from employment, if the
resignation is not tendered. The representation submitted
by the petitioner raising industrial dispute was referred for
conciliation and conciliation having failed, the Conciliation
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
Officer issued an endorsement enabling the petitioner to
raise an industrial dispute.
5. The petitioner approached the Labour Court
under Section 10(4-A) of Act, 1947. Petitioner filed an
interim application seeking sustenance allowance. The
Labour Court granted 50% of the last drawn salary as
sustenance allowance which was questioned before this
Court by the respondent- Establishment. The petition was
allowed and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court
to decide the question relating to the maintainability of the
industrial dispute as a preliminary issue.
6. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal
No.335/2023 filed by the workman modified the order of
the learned single Judge and directed the Labour Court to
decide the preliminary issue within two months and
confirmed the rest of the order.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
7. Before the Labour Court, the parties led
evidence on the preliminary issue to substantiate their
respective contentions and the Labour Court concluded
that the petitioner is not a workman and accordingly,
dismissed the petition.
8. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the
petitioner is before this Court.
9. The petitioner (party in person) referring to
various e-mails and other documents placed before the
Labour Court would urge that, the Labour Court committed
error in holding that the petitioner is not a workman. The
petitioner submits that he never performed the managerial
acts though he is designated as a Pool Manager.
10. Petitioner contends that he was doing the
clerical works and none reported to him. He had no
decision making power and was reporting to the head of
the management and from his job profile, it is evident that
the petitioner is a workman and was neither having a role
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
of a manager nor a supervisor. It is also submitted that
though his designation was Pool Manager, he was not the
coach and did not do any managerial, administrative or
supervisory work and the Labour Court erred in holding
that the petitioner is not a workman.
11. In support of his contention the petitioner
placed reliance on the following judgments:
(i) M/s Pam Networks Ltd vs Sri.B.Balakrishna1
(ii) Lyka Lab Limited Vs Aiyubbhai Valibhai Patel (High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad)2
(iii) Lloyds Bank Ltd. Vs. Panna Lal Gupta and others3
(iv) National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Sri.Kishan
Bhageria and others4
(v) Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union
Ltd. Vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah.5
(vi) V.P.Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and others 6
(vii) M/s Canara Lighting Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Merlyn
Sujatha.K7 (High Court of Karnataka)
(viii) Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak
Mahavidyalaya and others.8
1
ILR 2010 KAR 3539
2
R/Letters Patent Appeal No.948/2022 In R/Special Civil Application
No.15457/2008
3
AIR 1967 SC 428
4
1988 (Supp) SCC 82
5
2006 (6) SCC 548
6
2000 (3) SCC 239
7
WP. NO.4325/2021
8
2013 (10) SCC 324
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
(ix) K.V.Shankar vs. Management of G W Precision
Tools Pvt. Ltd.9 (High Court of Karnataka)
(x) Kalappa vs. Divisional Controller, NEKRTC10(High
Court of Karnataka)
12. Learned Senior counsel Sri M.R.C.Ravi
appearing for the respondents would defend the impugned
order. It is urged that the petitioner was required to carry
out day to day activities of the pool and petitioner had the
authority to arrange meeting schedules, sanction leave to
various workmen under the respondents, and petitioner
had control over various employees and taking all these
aspects into consideration, the Labour Court has rightly
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a
workman.
13. It is also urged that the appointment letter
would disclose his designation as Pool Manager and he was
paid a salary of Rs.47,800/- and the petitioner was doing
both managerial as well as administrative work as defined
under Section 2(s)(iii) of Act, 1947.
9
WP NO.7643/2012
10
WP NO.205541/2019
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
14. Learned Senior counsel would also urge that the
employees of the respondent had to submit leave
application to the petitioner. The petitioner used to fix
meetings, assign workmen with various assignments and
made appropriate alternative arrangements whenever the
employees who are assigned a particular duty could not
attend to the assigned duty.
15. Referring to paragraph No.3 extracted below,
learned senior counsel would urge that a person who is
assigned with the "task of running day to day activities of
the school" cannot claim to be the workman and by
necessary implication the petitioner would be either in the
managerial or administrative post. In this context, the
designation as pool manager would certainly take the
petitioner out of the ambit of definition of workman is the
submission.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
16. In support of the contentions learned Senior
counsel for the respondents also relied on the following
judgments:
1. N.Bhuvaneshwari v. Management of M/s
Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd. 11
2. Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S
Raghavendra12.
3. Lenin Kumar Ray v. Express Publications
(Madurai) Ltd. 13
4. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution
Company of India Ltd. v. The Burma Shell
Management Staff Association and
others14
5. S.K.Maini v. M/s Carona Sahu Company
Limited and others 15
6. K. Hanumantharayappa v. Management of
Indian Express (P.) Ltd. & Anr.16
7. Harish Ghularam Zode v. Managing
Director, Vaccum Plant and Instruments
11 2024 SCC Online Kar 8645
12 (2024) 6 SCC 418
13 2024 SCC Online SC 2987
14 (1970) 3 SCC 378
15 (1994) 3 SCC 510
16
2012 SCC Online Kar 8846
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd., Pune &
Ors.17
8. Sagari Leathers (Private) Ltd. v.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal
(IV), Agra & Ors.18
9. Tata Sons Ltd. v. S. Bandyopadhyay19
17. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
18. The Court has also considered the judgments
cited by both sides. The well established principles
governing the question whether an employee is a
workman or not is reiterated in the aforementioned
judgments in the fact situations obtained in the
aforementioned cases. The Court has borne in mind the
ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments and has
proceeded to consider the following question.
19. "Whether the petitioner is a workman or not?"
17
2000 (1) LLN 509
18
2006 (4) LLN 811
19
2004 (73) DRJ 553
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
20. Whether a person is a workman or not is to be
ascertained from the nature of the duty carried out by the
employee and it is not necessarily dependent on the
designation of the employee or the salary paid to the
employee. The salary would be one of the criteria, if the
employee is the supervisor.
21. The letter of employment disclosing the nature
of duties is also one of the important aspects which is to
be taken into consideration.
22. The said paragraph No.3 of the appointment
order reads as under:
"Your duties will be allocated by the management from
time to time. We expect full cooperation from you in
this regard, in the running of day-to-day activities of
the school.
If need be, you will also be expected to cooperate and
participate in other duties that might not be technically
a part of your job profile, but would be for the purpose
of achieving the common goals of the institution."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
23. From the Clause, found in paragraph No.3 it is
noticed that the Management expected co-operation in
running the day to day activities of the school.
24. The second part of Clause No.3 would indicate
that in addition to extending full cooperation in the
running of day-to-day activities of the school, the
employee may also be required to perform any other job
which may be assigned by the Management.
25. From the above Clause, one may not be able to
conclude the petitioner was entrusted with the managerial
or administrative responsibility. What are the instructions
or responsibilities given to the petitioner thereafter would
define the status of the petitioner. This being the position,
the Court has to look into the other materials that are
placed before the Labour Court.
26. On going through the records, this Court finds
that the petitioner was entrusted with the following duties
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
which according to the petitioner would place him under
category of workman.
(a) Cleaning and maintaining the pool.
(b) Maintaining files and records.
(c) Sending the report of swimming pool activities to
the management.
(d) Displaying notice on the notice board.
(e) Typing
(f) Shifting and arranging chairs and tables.
(g) Arranging pool equipments.
(h) Inspecting and verifying the tiles on the floor of
the pool by diving deep into the water.
(i) Following up the instructions of the superiors.
27. The respondent-Establishment in support of
their contention that the petitioner is not a workman refers
to following factors and duties:
(a) Petitioner's monthly salary was Rs.47,000/-
(b) Petitioner was in-charge of all operations of the pool.
(c) Admission and renewal of swimmers.
(d) Assisting in conducting in-house competitions.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
(e) Communicating with swimmers and the parents.
(f) Monitoring the swimmers while they are in pool.
(g) Maintenance of records.
(h) Signing cash vouchers and invoices for orders,
purchases.
(i) Endorsing the attendance of other employees.
(j) Arranging meetings.
(k) Signing minutes of the meetings.
(l) Endorsing on the leave applications.
28. Petitioner has produced certain e-mail
correspondence. It is seen from the e-mail correspondence
that, petitioner is seeking approval for some of the
schedules he has fixed pursuant to the decisions taken by
him in connection with the work assigned to him. From
these e-mails, one can conclude that the petitioner fixed
the schedules for certain events and sought approval. This
would indicate that schedules are fixed by the petitioner.
Merely because he is required to take the approval does
not make the job clerical. The petitioner has fixed the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
schedules which would indicate application of mind and
this forms part of the administrative work. Merely because
he is also required to seek approval for the schedule fixed
by him, one cannot conclude that he had no authority to
fix the schedule. May be the approval is required to ensure
that others in the establishment are available on the dates
fixed by the petitioner.
29. The petitioner has also referred to the cross
examination of the witness examined on behalf of the
management wherein it is elicited that, no communication
is addressed to any employees to seek leave from the
petitioner. This admission is extracted in the context of the
contention of the management that the petitioner used to
sanction leave to the other employees of the respondents.
30. It is indeed true that no communication is
placed by the Management informing other employees to
submit the leave application to the petitioner. However,
what is relevant to notice is the Management has produced
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
98 leave applications and all of them are signed by the
petitioner. It is noticed that in two leave applications, the
petitioner has signed as reporting head and in all other
applications his signature is found above the caption PM
Signature. PM would mean the Pool Manager.
31. The part of the leave application where Pool
Manager has signed is meant for office use. There the
petitioner (Pool Manager) is required to mention the
number of days of leave available; number of leave
availed and balance leave remaining. It is not clear as to
who would sanction leave. However, it appears that
reporting head is required to sanction leave and the Pool
Manager is required to mention the particulars referred to
above.
32. The petitioner contended that he was only doing
a clerical job by forwarding the leave application to the
superior. The format of the leave application indicates that
the petitioner is required to apply his mind and fill the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
particulars relating to the leave available, leave availed
and balance leave. This part of the work can also be
termed as administrative work.
33. It is elicited in the cross examination that the
management has not authorized the petitioner to make
salary payment to other employees. In the cross
examination the petitioner has also extracted certain
infirmities in the documents at Exs.M24 to M29 produced
by the respondent-Establishment.
34. The respondent-Establishment has also
produced records like attendance register, petty cash
register, expense extracts. Some of the invoices are raised
in the name of the petitioner by an entity called "Sagara
Pools & Spas". These invoices allegedly bear the signature
of the petitioner.
35. The documents marked at Ex.M1, M.11 to M.17
and M.19 on behalf of the respondent would reveal that
they are monthly reports of the employees of the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
respondent-Establishment which provide various
particulars of the employees, relating to the number of
working hours put in by the employees, the delay in
reporting to duty, the shift during which they have
worked, penalty if any imposed, the location of the work
and few other details. These reports are signed by the
petitioner which indicates that the petitioner was carrying
out administrative work.
36. Ex.M2 to M.10 are the extracts of attendance
register and the petitioner has signed the same. From the
documents produced namely the attendance register and
the monthly report, one can conclude that the petitioner
was carrying out the administrative work. The documents
at Ex.M.18 and M.21, M.22 are the petty cash expense
details for February/March, August, September/October-
2019 respectively are signed by the petitioner which would
indicate that the petitioner is the author of those
documents. Though it appears that other two employees
have also signed those documents, in the absence of any
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
specific evidence as to in what capacity others have
signed, the Court cannot brush aside the contention of the
respondent-Establishment that the petitioner was
entrusted with the responsibility more so, given the fact
that few records like invoices marked at Ex.M133, M.134,
M.135, M.136 and payment vouchers marked at Ex.C1 to
C.11 bear the signature of the petitioner.
37. The Labour Court has considered these aspects
and has concluded that the petitioner has held that the
petitioner cannot be termed as a 'workman'.
38. The party in person has urged that the Labour
Court erred in holding that the petitioner has not produced
the records for having carried out the work like
maintaining the files, sending the reports, displaying the
notices on the notice board, doing typing work, shifting
chairs and tables, diving deep into the waters.
39. The party in person urged that all the above
tasks carried out by the petitioner are admitted in the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
cross-examination and the Labour Court could not have
rejected the petitioner's claim that he was a workman in
the establishment.
40. It is the submission of the petitioner that the
Labour Court having held that the above noted works are
done by the workman, erred in holding that the petitioner
has not produced the records to hold that petitioner was
doing all the above noted tasks
41. It is indeed true that some of the
aforementioned works said to have been done by the
petitioner are established in the cross-examination of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent.
However, the law in this regard is well-settled. Whether an
employee is a workman or not cannot be decided with
reference to a particular work or some of the works. The
test is, the nature of the predominant work as can be
noticed from the judgment cited by both sides referred to
above.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
42. Keeping in mind the law laid down in the
aforementioned judgments, the Court is of the view that
the petitioner predominantly was carrying out
administrative job in the respondent-Establishment. Even
if it is accepted that he had done some of the work which
would have been ordinarily carried out by the workman
that does not take away the petitioner's predominant work
which was administrative in nature.
43. Taking into consideration the role played by the
petitioner as the 'sole pool manager' in the respondent-
Establishment, the Court is of the view that the petitioner
was playing active role in "running the day to day
activities of the school" which he was required to do as per
the terms of the employment. Thus, the role played by the
petitioner has to be termed as an administrative role as
urged by the respondent and held by the Labour Court.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
WP No. 19182 of 2024
HC-KAR
44. The Labour Court has taken into consideration
all the relevant material facts and has rightly held that the
petitioner is not a workman.
45. Before ending, this Court would place it on
record that the party in person, though not an advocate
has ably presented his case.
46. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(b) The order dated 30.12.2023 in
I.D.No.06/2020 on the file of II Additional
Labour Court, Bangalore is confirmed.
(c) The petitioner is at liberty to avail such
remedy as available in law notwithstanding
the dismissal of the Writ Petition as
petitioner's grievance is not yet adjudicated
by the Competent Court/Forum.
(d) In case the petitioner approaches the
Competent Court/Forum, the Court/Forum
shall consider the claim on merits and
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47279
HC-KAR
period of limitation if any, shall be excluded
from the date of petitioner raising the
dispute till this date.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS/GVP
