The central legal point established is that the civil court had jurisdiction to try the suit despite the petitioner's defense based on the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This petition is by the judgment debtor in Execution Petition No.157/2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior civil Judge, Davanagere [for short, 'the executing Court']. The petitioner has impugned the executing Court's order dtd. 2/1/2014, and the executing Court by this impugned order has rejected the petitioner's objection raised under Sec. 47 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. This Court on 20/4/2016, has granted interim protection against the arrest but on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1, 75, 000.00, and the petitioner has deposited this amount.

2. The respondent - decree holder has filed multiple applications, including the applications for early hearing and vacating of this Court's interim order with a request for release of the amount in deposit. Sri A.Gopi Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R. Gopal, the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard and records perused for disposal of the petition.

3. The respondent's suit in O.S.No.39/2007 is decreed by the judgment dtd. 2/7/2012 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. One of the defenses taken by the petitioner in the suit is whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit, and this Issue is answered in favour of the respondent rejecting the petitioner's defense that the respondent's remedy would be under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [ID Act].

4. It is seen from the impugned order as well as the records produced that the respondent, who claims was employed for management of Pushpanjali, Padmanjali Theatres as also Chandrika Theatre [the petitioner], has commenced the proceedings under the ID Act, which has culminated with this Court's order dtd. 10/8/2011 in W.P.No.25627 - 25628/2010. This Court has affirmed the view taken by the Industrial Tribunal that the respondent cannot be an employee as defined under the provisions of the ID Act in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondent was appointed as a General Manager/Manager; that the petitioner has not led any evidence to establish the nature of duties discharged by him and that the respondent had commenced suit asserting that he was working as supervisor then promoted as Manager.

5. In the light of this conclusive opinion, which has prevailed, the petitioner cannot succeed in avoiding enforcement of the decree. Hence, the civil Court has rightly considered that there is no material on record and as such, the petition stands disposed of directing the registry to transfer the amount in deposit to the executing Court for disbursement to the petitioner within six [6] weeks from today. The executing Court, upon receipt of a certified copy of this order, is directed to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law.