Saleem Javed v. The Management of M/S Nettakallappa Aquatic Centre

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO.565 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SALEEM JAVED S/O. ABOOBAKAR, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABOOBAKAR, R/O. MALPE CITY CENTRE, FLAT NO.105, OPP. YELURU MOGAVEERA BHAVAN, MAIN ROAD, MALPE-576108, UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SALEEM JAVED, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

AND:

¶1THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. NETTAKALLAPPA AQUATIC CENTRE, 47/1/40, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560061, REP. BY DIRECTOR.

¶2SMT. SUJATHA TILAK KUMAR, DIRECTOR, M/S. NETTAKALLAPPA AQUATIC CENTRE, 47/1/40, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PAVAN SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 PRODUCED AT "ANNEXURE-A", PASSED IN WRIT PETITION WP.19182 OF 2024 (L-RES), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

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

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

¶1Heard the Party-in-Person/review petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent-Management.

¶2This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.19182/2024.

¶3The review petitioner/Party-in-Person submits that the Court has proceeded to take a view that the petitioner was working in administrative capacity and, as such, he is not a workman, and dismissed the petition.

¶4It is his further submission that the contention "that the petitioner was working in the administrative capacity" was not raised before the Labour Court and was raised for the first time before the High Court. The High Court has proceeded as if the Labour Court had also recorded a finding that the petitioner was working in administrative capacity, though the Labour Court had recorded a finding that the petitioner was working in managerial capacity.

¶5The party-in person has referred to the contentions in paragraphs No. 6, 16, 24 and 25 in the statement of objection filed by the employer.

¶6In addition, the review petitioner/Party-in-Person would also submit that his application for interim relief sought in the petition was not considered by the Court while deciding the writ petition on merit.

¶7The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Court has taken a view that the Party-in-Person/review petitioner was working in the administrative capacity. Though the Labour Court has held that he was working in a managerial capacity, this Court has held that he is not a workman by taking a view that he was working in administrative capacity and has assigned reasons in paragraph Nos.25, 42, 43 and 44 of the order sought to be reviewed.

¶8It is further submitted that, before the Labour Court, the Management had taken a contention that the petitioner fits in the category of employee under Section 2(s),

(iii) and (iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act,1947") and, as such, he is not a workman.

¶9In addition, the learned Senior Counsel would also refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others1 to contend that the scope of a review petition is limited and that it cannot be treated as an appeal.

¶10The Party-in-Person, replying to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, would urge that his submissions are confined only to errors apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, would urge that the petition be allowed.

¶11The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

¶12In paragraph Nos.25, 42, 43 and 44 of the impugned order, this Court has held as under: "25. From the above Clause, one may not be able to conclude petitioner was entrusted with managerial or administrative responsibility. What are

1 (2013) 8 SCC 320

instructions or responsibilities given to 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.

¶42Keeping 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.

¶43Taking into consideration the role played by the petitioner as 'sole pool manager' in 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.

¶44The Labour Court has taken into consideration all the relevant material facts and has rightly held that the petitioner is not a workman."

¶13It is relevant to notice that this Court has recorded a finding that, from Clause No.3 in the appointment letter, it is not possible to ascertain whether the petitioner was working in a managerial or administrative capacity. However, having regard to the nature of the duties discharged by the petitioner, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in an administrative capacity.

¶14The expression "held by the Labour Court" found in last line of paragraph No.43 though would give an impression that the Court has proceeded on the assumption that Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was working in the administrative capacity, on considering the judgment in entirety and also paragraph No.44 of the order the Court is of the view that the writ petition is decided on the premise that the petitioner is not a workman as he was working in the administrative capacity and not in the managerial capacity.

Sufficient reasons are assigned to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in the administrative capacity.

¶15Though it is stated in the statement of objections before the Labour Court, that the petitioner was working in a managerial capacity at quite a few places, what is required to be noticed is whether employee was working in a managerial capacity or administrative capacity has to be understood from the nature of the work and not from the designation referred to in the pleading. That is the settled position of law.

¶16Considering the nature of the work, the Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was working in an administrative capacity.

¶17It is also noticed that the defence is also raised before the Labour Court that the petitioner would fall under Section 2(s)(iii) and (iv) of the Act, 1947, which includes the contention that the petitioner was working in administrative capacity.

¶18As far as the contention of the petitioner that the application for interim relief was not considered is concerned,

the Court is of the view that the said application was not disposed of while passing the order in the writ petition. The application is filed seeking interim relief/compensation in the nature of subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

¶19Since the Court has come to the conclusion that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, the question of granting subsistence allowance does not arise.

¶20Hence, application seeking subsistence allowance is also dismissed. Since no error apparent on the face of the record is pointed out, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

RHR/- CT: UMD List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1