Karnataka High Court
Amrut Distilleries Limited vs Mr. Narayanswamy H B on 27 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB
WA No. 1333 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1333 OF 2021 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. AMRUT DISTILLERIES LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
NO.36, SAMPANGI TANK ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 027
AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
NO.41/1, 72ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK
RAJAJINAGAR,
Digitally BENGALURU - 560 010
signed by REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED
RUPA V
Location: SIGNATORY MR. K VISHWANATHAN
High Court S/O T R KRISHNAMURTHY
Of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
(HUMAN RESOURCE)
AMRUT DISTRILLERIES LIMITED
NO.36, SAMPANGI TANK ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027
AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT
NO.41/1, 72ND CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB
WA No. 1333 of 2021
HC-KAR
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MR. NARAYANSWAMY H B
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
(ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE NO.627)
NO.157, IIND MAIN ROAD,
MALLASANDRA PIEPLINE
BENGALURU - 560 057.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY B., ADVOCATE)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 17.11.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.6414/2020 (L-TER) ON IA NO.1/2021 AND IA
NO.2/2021 IN SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE APPELLANTS TO PAY
WAGES IN TERMS OF SECTION 17B AND PASS ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE ORDERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB
WA No. 1333 of 2021
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the interim order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6414/2020 (L-TER) on I.A.No.1/2021 and 2/2021.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent was working as a security guard with the appellants. He was dismissed from service on misconduct which was interfered with by the Labour Court directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent to his original post with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, which was assailed by the appellants in a writ petition. The respondent filed applications under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which came to be allowed under the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the Management is in appeal.
3. Sri.Praveenkumar Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single -4- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR Judge has erred in allowing the applications filed by the respondent. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the respondent-workman has not filed affidavit in terms of Section 17B of the Act. It is further submitted that the burden was cast on the respondent- employee to plead and prove that he was not gainfully employed and in the absence of such a plea in the form of affidavit, the applications ought not to have been allowed. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the applications and thereafter directed the respondent-workman to file affidavit, which is impermissible. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL GANDHI MUSEUM Vs. SUDHIR SHARMA1, decision of the Bombay High Court in the cases of NEMCHAND S SABALE Vs. SPACO CARBURITTORS (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER2, U.P.STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. Vs. MAHARASHTRA GENERAL 1 Civil Appeal No.8215-16/11 dt.24.9.21 2 2016 SCC Online BOM 13344 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR KAMAGAR UNION3 and ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. SMT.K.B.JOSHI4 and seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Keshava Murthy B., learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the applications as well as the affidavit filed by the respondent-workman clearly states that he is unemployed, he has financial difficulties and he has a responsibility to take care of the family. These averments in the applications as well as the affidavit meet the requirement of law. It is further submitted that as directed by the learned Single Judge, an additional affidavit is also filed which makes it further clear that the respondent is not employed anywhere. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondent and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides.
3 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 297 4 (1987) 1 LLN 695 (Bom) (DB) -6- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR
6. The point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the impugned order of the learned Single Judge calls for any interference?"
7. The respondent-workman assailed the dismissal order dated 15.11.2013 of the appellants before the Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.76/2013. The Labour Court, vide order dated 29.11.2019 allowed the claim petition of the respondent by setting aside the dismissal order and further directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent-workman into service to his original post with full backwages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits within a period of 30 days of the publication of the award. The records indicate that the appellant challenged the order of the Labour Court in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.10.2020 directed the appellant to pay wages under Section 17B of the Act without there being any application and an affidavit of the respondent-workman. The appellant assailed the said order in W.A.No.709/2020 which came to be disposed of by setting aside the order dated 12.10.2020 by permitting the respondent-workman to file appropriate application under Section 17B of the Act and the learned Single Judge was -7- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent-workman filed two applications under Section 17B of the Act seeking prayer to pay the last drawn wage by way of interim relief which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge under the impugned order.
8. The primary contention of the appellants is that the respondent-workman did not file an affidavit and discharge the burden to prove that he is not gainfully employed and entitled for wages under Section 17B of the Act. The records indicate that the appellant-management has refused to reinstate him into service which has necessitated the respondent-workman to move an application dated 17.07.2021. It would be useful to extract paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application hereinbelow:
"2. The applicant further submits from the date of dismissal, the applicant is without employment and even after the award of the Labour Court, the Management / petitioner herein not at all reinstated even after his repeated requests, instead filed the above petition before this Hon'ble Court.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the applicant has studied only 10th standard and he was working as Security Guard with the petitioner Company since more than 22 years and in view of abrupt dismissal -8- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR from the service, the applicant has not only lost his source of income and put into mental agony. The applicant has not source of income and unable to maintain himself and also the minor children's. The applicant requires for day to day expenses for food, cloth, medicine education of the minor children etc."
9. The affidavit accompanying the application clearly indicates that the statements made in the paragraphs of the application are true and correct to the best of the knowledge of the respondent. The aforesaid averments clearly indicate that the respondent-workman is without any employment and he is facing financial difficulty. The appellants filed objections to the said application specifically objecting to the averments of the application by stating that the averments should form part of the affidavit. The respondent-workman filed another application on 08.11.2021. Paragaraph 3 of the affidavit reads as under:
"3. I further submit I have studied only 10th standard and I was working as Security Guard with the Petitioner Company since more than 22 years and in view of abrupt dismissal from the service, I has not only lost my source of income and put into mental agony. I have no source of income and unable to maintain myself and also the minor -9- NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR children's. I am requires for day to day expenses for food, cloth, medicine education of he minor children etc."
10. The aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit clearly indicates that the respondent has studied upto 10th standard, he was working with the appellant-Company for more than 22 years and in view of dismissal, he lost his source of income and he is in mental agony. He further states that he is unable to maintain himself and his minor children and the wages are required to meet day-to-day expenses for food, clothing, medicine, education, etc. By reading the aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit, it is very much clear that the respondent has financial difficulties and he has no source of income. The Court can draw the inference from the said affidavit that he was not gainfully employed after the dismissal in the absence of any contradictory material by the appellants. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the application has observed that the affidavit is not aptly worded and directed the respondent- workman to file an additional affidavit. The respondent- workman filed an additional affidavit on 10.12.2021. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said affidavit clearly demonstrate
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR that the respondent-workman is neither gainfully employed anywhere nor self-employed. A cogent reading of the two applications, affidavits accompanying the applications and the affidavit dated 10.12.2021 meets the requirement of law. The contention of the appellants with regard to discharge of burden by the respondent-workman by pleading with regard to him not being gainfully employed has been fully discharged by the respondent-workman. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the object of Section 17B of the Act is to provide interim wages to an employee to sustain himself during the pendency of the litigation.
11. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of NEMCHAND S. SABALE, referred supra has no application to the facts of this case. In the said decision, the application was filed 3½ years later and the application was bereft of details. In the case on hand, two applications and an affidavit of the respondent-workman clearly meet the requirement of law.
12. In the case of U.P.STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD., referred supra, the Hon'ble Bombay
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR High Court in the said case held that the onus of seeking a statutory interim protection is upon the workman and where the management claims the benefit of proviso of Section 17B, the onus is upon the management. The onus on the workman is very limited and once an affidavit as contemplated under proviso to Section 17B is filed and the Court is satisfied that the workman is not employed in any establishment during the relevant period, a direction for payment of wages under Section 17B would be issued. The said Court further observed that the application under Section 17B is required to be considered on the facts of each case. In the instant case, the initial burden as required under the law has been discharged by the respondent- workman by filing two applications and an affidavit which clearly demonstrate that the workman was not gainfully employed, self-employed and he has financial difficulties. Similar view is taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. referred supra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATIONAL GANDHI MUSEUM, referred supra at paragraph 8 held that the fact whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and therefore, considering the principle laid down in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. The affidavit of the respondent-workman as already referred supra demonstrates that he was neither gainfully employed nor self-employed for the relevant period. The applications and the affidavit filed by the workman were required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and intent of Section 17B of the Act. It would be useful to refer to paragraphs 47 and 48 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHRASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. MAHADEO KRISHNA NAIK5 "47. There is one other aspect that would fall for consideration of the court. In certain decisions, noticed in Deepali Gundu Surwase [Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 : (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 184] , it has been opined that whether or not an employee has been gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and having regard to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on him. What is required of an employee in such a case? He has to plead in his statement of claim or any 5 (2025) 4 SCC 321
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR subsequent pleading before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court that he has not been gainfully employed and that the award of reinstatement may also grant him back wages. If the employee pleads that he was not gainfully employed, he cannot possibly prove such negative fact by adducing positive evidence. In the absence of any contra- material on record, his version has to be accepted. Reference in this connection may be made to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which confers a right on an employee to seek "full wages last drawn" from the employer while the challenge of the employer to an award directing reinstatement in a higher court remains pending. There too, what is required is a statement on affidavit regarding non-employment and with such statement on record, the ball is in the court of the employer to satisfy the court why relief under such section ought not to be granted by invoking the proviso to the section. We see no reason why a similar approach may not be adopted.
48. After the employee pleads his non-
employment and if the employer asserts that the employee was gainfully employed between the dates of termination and proposed reinstatement, the onus of proof would shift to the employer to prove such assertion having regard to the cardinal principle that "he who asserts must prove". Law, though, seems to be well settled that if the employer by reason of its
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR illegal act deprives any of its employees from discharging his work and the termination is ultimately held to be bad in law, such employee has a legitimate and valid claim to be restored with all that he would have received but for being illegally kept away from work. This is based on the principle that although the employee was willing to perform work, it was the employer who did not accept work from him and, therefore, if the employer's action is held to be illegal and bad, such employer cannot escape from suffering the consequences. However, it is elementary but requires to be restated that while grant of full back wages is the normal rule, an exceptional case with sufficient proof has to be set up by the employer to escape the burden of bearing back wages."
13. Keeping in mind the aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, we are of the considered view that the required burden to prove that the workman was not gainfully employed is discharged by the respondent-workman and he cannot be expected to prove a negative fact by adducing positive evidence with regard to gainful employment. Admittedly, after discharge of initial burden, the appellant-management has
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:42874-DB WA No. 1333 of 2021 HC-KAR failed to produce any material to disbelieve the contents of the applications and the affidavits.
14. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
15. Consequently, pending application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2