The State of Karnataka v. Shivaraju

NC:(2026:KHC:22180( WP(No.(6457(of(2024( C/W(WP(No.(6856(of(2024( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RDDATED(THIS(THE(23 (DAY(OF(APRIL,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ANANT(RAMANATH(HEGDE( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6457(OF(2024((L-RES)( C/W( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(6856(OF(2024((L-RES)( ( IN(WP(No.(6457/2024:( ( BETWEEN:(( ( THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED,BY,THE,, DEPUTY,CONSERVATOR,OF,FOREST,, DEPARTMENT,OF,FOREST,, SOCIAL,FOREST,REGION,, KANAKAPURA,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,M.,RAJAKUMAR,,AGA), , AND:( ( Digitallytisigned SHIVARAJU,S/O.,MARAPPA,,by0BELUR AGED,ABOUT,50,YEARS,,RANGADHAMA NANDINI R/O.,MARASANDRA,VILLAGE,, Location:0HIGH HAROHALLI,HOBLI,AND,POST,, COURT0OF KANAKAPURA,TALUK,, KARNATAKA RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT-561,101., …RESPONDENT, (BY,SRI.,SOMASHEKARA,REDDY,K.V.,,ADVOCATE), , , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER,PASSED,BY,THE,PRINCIPAL,DISTRICT,AND,SESSIONS, JUDGE,, RAMANAGARA, DATED, 29.02.2020, IN, I.D.NO.2/2016, ANNEXURE-A.,, NC:(2026:KHC:22180( WP(No.(6457(of(2024( C/W(WP(No.(6856(of(2024( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( IN(WP(NO.(6856/2024:( , BETWEEN:( , , THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, REP.,BY,THE,DEPUTY,CONSERVATOR,OF,FOREST,, DEPARTMENT,OF,FOREST,, SOCIAL,FOREST,REGION,, KANAKAPURA,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT., ...PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,M.,RAJAKUMAR,,AGA), , AND:( ,

1., M.C.,SRINIVASAIAH, S/O.,LATE,CHANNAGIRIYAIAH,, MAJOR,, R/AT,MARASANDRA,VILLAGE,, HAROHALLI,HOBLI,AND,POST,, KANAKAPURA,TALUK,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT., ,

2., CHANNAVEERAPPA,D.E., S/O.,LATE,VEERAPPA,, R/O.,DUNTHURU,VILLAGE,, KAADAHALLI,POST,, SATHANURU,HOBLI,, KANAKAPURA,TALUK,, RAMANAGARA,DISTRICT., ...RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,SOMASHEKARA,REDDY,K.V.,,ADVOCATE,, ,,,,,,FOR,R1,AND,R2), , ,,,,,THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,AND,227,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,SET,ASIDE,THE, ORDER,DATED,29.2.2020,IN,ID,NO.4,OF,2016,PASSED,BY, THE, PRINCIPAL, DISTRICT, AND, SESSIONS, JUDGE,, RAMANAGARA,,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A.,,

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER The petition in W.P.No.6457/2024 is filed assailing the award dated 29.02.2020 in I.D.No.2/2016 and the petition in W.P.No.6856/2024 is filed assailing the award dated 29.02.2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ramanagar [for short, 'the Labour Court'].

¶2In terms of the said award, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner - department before this Court to reinstate the first party - workmen to their original position and also directed payment of back wages from

01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 at the rate of Rs.2,465/- per month along with all the terminal benefits including 50% of back wages from 01.04.2008 till their reinstatement.

¶3It is submitted that the award of the Labour Court was stayed by this Court and before they were

reinstated, the respondents - workmen [Sri Sri Shivaraju and Sri.M.C.Srinivasaiah] attained the age of superannuation in 2024 and Sri Channaveerappa D.E. is still working.

¶4Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that, the award challenging reinstatement is not pressed as two of the workmen have attained superannuation and one workman is reinstated. It is further submitted that the amount payable under the award is also paid.

¶5Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, entire amount payable is not yet paid.

¶6Learned Government Advocate would submit that, the proceeding under Sections 33C(1) and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'ID Act'] is pending consideration before the jurisdictional Court on the premise that the award is not yet complied. Since the respondents - workmen [Sri.Shivaraju and

Sri.M.C.Srinivasaiah] have attained the age of superannuation, there is no question of reinstatement and there is no violation.

¶7The question is, "whether the respondents - workmen [Sri Shivaraju and Sri M.C.Srinivasaiah] are entitled to receive any sum in addition what is said to have been paid to these respondents?"

¶8Learned Government Advocate would submit that, Rs.1,33,775/- to Sri M.C.Srinivasaiah and Rs.2,66,786/- to Sri Shivaraju is paid.

¶9Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that, said payment is not in compliance with the award.

¶10Sri Channaveerappa D.E. is reinstated and he is still working. There is no question of initiating prosecution for not reinstating Channaveerappa D.E. However, in case if any amount is due to the respondents, the respondents

are at liberty to initiate proceeding to recover the same under Section 33-C (1) of the ID Act. Under these circumstances, the pending criminal proceedings against the officers of the petitioner shall be dropped.

¶11The adjudication under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act can take place on an application filed by the respondents to ascertain as to whether the amount payable pursuant to the award is paid or not.

¶12In case it is found on adjudication in a proceeding under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act that the amount is not paid, then there shall be appropriate order to recover the amount and the respondents in such a situation are also entitled to initiate action under Section 29 of the ID Act.

¶13On production of the copy of this order the Labour Court shall drop the criminal proceeding against the officers of the petitioner. If the respondents claim that

the amount is yet to be paid, same shall be adjudicated under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act as indicated above.

¶14With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20