Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Kar Mobiles Ltd vs Sri G Chandraiah on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2025 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2025 (L-TER)
IN WA No. 867/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KANTHARAJU
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O MUDDAPPA,
SINGONAHALLI COLONY
HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
2. A. SIDDAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 62 YRS.
KARNATAKA S/O AYYANNAPPA,
MANCHAKAKUPPE,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN:572 168.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
KAR MOBILES LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
PLOT NO. 36, B-37,
HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMAKUR-572 168
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.
2. SRI G.CHANDRAIAH
S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
3. SRI KEMPARAJU,
S/O GANGAIAH,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. MAHESH B.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.15852/2012 AND TO RESTORE THE AWARD DATED
21/03/2012 PASSED IN I.D. NO.36/2009 AND 39/2009 AS AT
ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AND/TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER.
IN WA NO. 658/2025
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
KAR MOBILES LTD
(NOW CHANGED AS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
RANE ENGINES VOLVES
PVT. LTD.,) PLOT NO.36,
B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR-572 168.
COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 &
IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ENGINE
VALVES, REPRESENTED BY SRI. VINAYA CHANDRA
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)
[email protected]
MOBILE NO.98499 24150
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O. GANGAHANUMAIAH
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR-572 168
2. SRI.KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O.MUDDAPPA
SINGONAHALLI COLONY
HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR 572 168
3. SRI.K G KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O.GANGAIAH
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR - 572 168
4. SRI.A SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O.AYYANNAPPA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
MANCHAKAKUPPE
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR - 572 168
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH B.J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3,
SRI. K.B NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.03.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-15852/2012 AND TO RESTORE
THE AWARD DATED 21/03/2012 PASSED IN I.D
NO.36/2009 AND 39/2009 AS AT ANNEXURE-E
RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR
COURT, BENGALURU AND/TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. These intra court appeals are by the Management as well as employees challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15852/2012 c/w. W.P.No.47731/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition -5- NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR filed by the Management and dismissed the petition filed by the employees.
2. The facts apposite for consideration as borne out from the pleadings are as under:
In the dispute raised by the employees, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper, however, set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, without backwages. Aggrieved by which, the Management as well as the employees preferred the writ petitions.
3. The learned Single Judge, having found that the case on hand relates to ghearao and assault in the backdrop of longstanding demand by all workmen for settlement of wages, has modified the award of the Labour Court by withholding three increments with cumulative effect and also by holding the employees entitled for -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR continuity of service only for calculating retiral benefits, however, affirmed the reinstatement.
4. Aggrieved by which, only the employees, who had retired from service, have preferred W.A.867/2025 and the Management has preferred W.A.658/2025.
5. We have heard Sri K.B.Narayana Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-employees and Sri B.C.Prabhakara for the Management and Sri Mahesh B.J., learned counsel appearing for the employees (working).
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-employees contended that though the Labour Court had exercised its discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, "the Act") judiciously and after appreciating the evidence, has rightly reinstated the employees with continuity of service and consequential benefits and denied the benefit of backwages as a measure of punishment, the learned Single Judge has -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR erred in interfering with the said award and also erred in withholding three increments with cumulative effect and granting continuity of service only for calculation of retiral benefits and denying consequential benefits, which is totally disproportionate in the light of the findings of the Labour Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of the employees.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Management contended that though the Labour Court has observed in the judgment that the incident took place for two days and the same was preplanned by the workmen along with outsiders and assaulted the officers of the Management, which cannot be ruled out, despite strangely observed that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate and reinstated the employees. Further, the learned Single Judge has erred in affirming the reinstatement and awarding only the minimum punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. Both the Labour Court and the learned -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR Single Judge, having concluded that misconduct the employees has been proved, would not have invoked Section 11A of the Act and would not have reinstated the employees. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal of the Management.
8. As could be gathered from records, before the Labour Court, the employees have examined four witnesses and produced 13 documents. The Management also examined two witnesses and produced 35 documents. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence at length, came to the conclusion that the workmen to get their demands with regard to settlement of wages satisfied, insisted the Management and in that process, there may be exchange of hot words between them and that the same was without any intention to insult or annoy anybody. In such circumstances, dismissal of the workmen from service, is shockingly disproportionate. The said finding of the Labour Court was also affirmed by the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR learned Single Judge in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the impugned order, which reads as under:
"25. The Labour Court also took note of then prevailing situation where the demand from the Union was pending and same was not settled for about year and half since expiry of the earlier settlement. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court has taken a view that exchange of words to insist for the compliance of the demands by the Union has resulted in gherao and such incident cannot be construed as one warranting dismissal and the Labour Court has held that the act was not committed to insult or annoy anyone. Considering the fact that the demand by the Union was pending consideration for long time, this Court is of the view that the award interfering with the punishment in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 is something which requires correction in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction. The question for consideration is view taken by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR Labour Court is based on evidence or no evidence and whether the Labour Court has exercised Section 11A jurisdiction judiciously.
27. In Usha Breco supra, the Apex Court has considered the question whether the Labour Court overstepped its jurisdiction in reversing the finding of guilty arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The finding of the Apex Court is the evidence led before the disciplinary authority did not enable the Labour Court to set aside the findings of the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the question is slightly different. The question is whether the evidence on record enabled the Labour Court substituting the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11A. In appropriate cases, even if the domestic enquiry is held to be proper and workman is found guilty, the Labor Court has the power to substitute the punishment provided the materials support such decision."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. We have carefully perused the finding of the Labour Court and the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. In the instant case, the charges were held to be proved in the disciplinary enquiry as well as before the Labour Court. However, the Labour Court, by taking into consideration the longstanding demand for settlement of wages and the previous conduct of workmen, has passed an award reinstating the workmen without any backwages. Among four employees, two employees have not filed any appeal against the Labour Court i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 3 in Writ appeal No.658/2025. The employees, who have attained the age of superannuation, filed W.A.No.867/2025.
10. The learned Single Judge, while confirming the order of reinstatement of the employees ordered by the Labour Court, modified the award with regard to continuity of service with all consequential benefits by withholding three annual increments of the workmen with cumulative
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB WA No. 867 of 2025 C/W WA No. 658 of 2025 HC-KAR effect and entitling the workmen to continuity of service only for calculating retiral benefits.
11. Having examined the evidence and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, since the charges against the employees were proved before the Labour Court, we are of the view that withholding one increment of the workmen with cumulative effect instead of three annual increments would meet the ends of justice. However, the remaining portion of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall remain undisturbed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the Management is dismissed and the appeal of the employees is allowed in part.
SD/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23