[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Kumar.K vs The Hotel Manager on 2 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 28911 OF 2019 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
KUMAR.K,
S/O LATE O KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NO.22, 2ND CROSS,
SHIVASHANKAR BLOCK,
HEBBAL, BANGALORE-560024.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE HOTEL MANAGER,
BHARATH HOTELS LIMITED,
THE LALITH ASHOK
KUMARAKRUPA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI K PRABHAKAR RAO, ADVOCATE)
signed by C
HONNUR SAB THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
Location: AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
HIGH COURT FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT,
OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE, PERTAINING TO THE AWARD PASSED IN ID
NO.16/2015, DTD.30.04.2019.QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD.23.08.2018 PASSED ON THE VALIDITYB OF THE
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY VIDE ANNX-H AND THE FINAL AWARD
DTD.30.04.2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE, IN ID NO.16/2015 VIDE ANNX-J TO THE W.P.
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03RD FEBRUARY 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order
dated 23.08.2018 and the award dated 30.04.2019 passed in
Industrial Dispute No. 16/2015 by the Principal Labour Court,
Bengaluru ("Labour Court").
2. By the said order, the Labour Court held that the
domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and
proper. Further, the petitioner challenges the award dated
30.04.2019, whereby the Labour Court rejected the petitioner's
claim statement and upheld the order of dismissal.
3. The petitioner was employed as a Kitchen Steward
in the respondent. The genesis of the dispute lies in an alleged
incident dated 12.01.2013. It is the case of the respondent-
management that the petitioner entered the chamber of the HR
Manager, Ms.Vandana Jha, refused to accept a suspension
order, and threatened her with dire consequences once she
came out of the office.
4. A charge sheet dated 24.04.2013 was issued. In the
charge sheet, it is alleged that the petitioner threatened the HR
-3-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
Manager as follows: "You are the HR Manager in this hotel I will
show you what you are outside." Following a domestic enquiry,
the petitioner was dismissed from service.
5. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute
challenging the order dated 23.08.2018 holding the domestic
enquiry as fair and the award dated 30.04.2019, which rejected
the challenge to the penalty of dismissal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge
that the petitioner, having studied only up to the 6th Standard
and possessing no proficiency in English, was served with a
charge memo in a language he did not understand, without
supporting documents. Furthermore, his requests to engage a
defence assistant and to summon material witnesses, such as
Senior Manager K.Satheesh Kumar, were summarily rejected.
7. The petitioner contends that he was on sanctioned
leave from 12.01.2013 to 22.01.2013 to attend functions at his
native place. The petitioner further contends that he was not
present on the premises on the date of the alleged incident
(12.01.2013).
-4-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
8. It is urged that the respondent-management's case
rests solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the
complainant, Ms.Vandana Jha. Other witnesses did not
substantiate the alleged threat by the petitioner.
9. The petitioner submits that the findings are based
on no legally acceptable evidence and suffer from perversity,
warranting interference by this Court under its supervisory
jurisdiction.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent-establishment
would urge that the Labour Court has rightly concluded that the
domestic enquiry was fair, proper, and conducted in accordance
with law. No material has been placed to prove otherwise.
11. In a domestic enquiry, the standard of proof is the
"preponderance of probabilities" rather than "beyond
reasonable doubt." The testimony of Ms.Vandana Jha, coupled
with her prompt police complaint on the day of the incident,
sufficiently establishes the charges.
12. The scope of interference by the High Court is
extremely limited. Once an enquiry is held to be fair, the Court
should not substitute its own view for that of the Enquiry
-5-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
Officer merely because a different view is possible, it is
submitted.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent urged that
the tenor of the petitioner's own claim statement--wherein he
allegedly stated that, had the incident occurred, he "would have
done something" to the HR Manager--effectively establishes
that the incident took place.
14. The petitioner failed to produce the actual order
sanctioning his leave for the period in question and did not lead
independent evidence relating to defence of alibi. Therefore, his
plea of alibi was rightly rejected by the Labour Court, it is
submitted.
15. The witnesses examined on behalf of the
respondent-establishment have spoken about the petitioner's
presence in the cabin of Ms.Vandana Jha, and thus, the alleged
incident is duly established by applying the test of
preponderance of probability.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent-
Establishment would urge that the Enquiry Officer has
considered all the materials on record. Ms.Vandana Jha, to
-6-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
whom the petitioner allegedly issued the threat, has
unequivocally stated that the petitioner refused to receive the
suspension order and also issued a threat.
17. Before the Labour Court, though it was urged that
the enquiry was not fair and proper, upon appreciation of all
the materials placed before the Enquiry Officer, the Labour
Court concluded that the enquiry was proper, and no material
has been placed before this Court to hold that the enquiry was
not conducted in accordance with law.
18. In addition, it is urged that the workman lodged a
false complaint on 14.07.2014 against the Enquiry Officer as
well as the HR Manager, Ms.Vandana Jha, alleging caste-based
abuse. It is urged that the said complaint is not established. By
referring to the tenor of the statement of objections filed by the
petitioner, it is further urged that the incident has taken place.
19. It is further urged that, in a case of this nature, the
scope for interference by the Labour Court and the High Court
is very limited, and once the enquiry is held to be fair and
proper, the case has to be decided based on preponderance of
probabilities. Merely because two views are possible, it is not
permissible to take a different view.
-7-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
20. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on
the following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(a) Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
Vs Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union1.
(b) Pravin Kumar Vs. Union of India2
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of reply,
contended that when specific evidence such as CCTV footage
and the register at the security gate were not produced, an
adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the
respondent-establishment. The non-production of such crucial
evidence, which could have conclusively established the
presence or absence of the petitioner on the premises on
12.01.2013, renders the findings of the Enquiry Officer
unsustainable.
22. The petitioner also contends that the Labour Court
erred in rejecting the defence of alibi on the ground that the
bus ticket does not contain the date and no other evidence was
led. It is urged that the petitioner could not have been
expected to retain evidence relating to his travel on 11.01.2013
when the enquiry was conducted many months later and he
1
(2005) 3 SCC 331
2
(2020) 9 SCC 471
-8-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
was unaware that he would face an enquiry relating to the
disputed incident dated 12.01.2013.
23. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
24. The charge sheet is dated 24.04.2013. In the said
charge sheet, it is alleged that the petitioner-workman, on
12.01.2013, abused the Human Resources Manager,
Ms.Vandana Jha, by stating: "You are the HR Manager in this
hotel; I will show you what you are outside." The petitioner-
workman claims that though the charge sheet is dated
24.04.2013, it was served on him only in June 2013. He has
disputed the charges levelled against him. He has taken a
specific defence that on 01.01.2013, he had applied for leave
from 12.01.2013 to 22.01.2013, and the leave was sanctioned
on 01.01.2013. In this background, the petitioner contends that
on 11.01.2013, he travelled to his native place to attend certain
functions. Thus, his specific defence is that on 12.01.2013, he
was not present at the premises where the alleged incident
took place.
-9-
WP No. 28911 of 2019
25. The Labour Court has concluded that the alleged
leave is not established. The petitioner-workman has not
produced the order sanctioning leave.
26. One of the witnesses on behalf of the management,
namely Deepti Nhattiala, examined as MW1, has stated that
CCTV cameras were installed at prime locations, particularly at
the security gate. However, in her examination-in-chief, she
has not stated anything about the alleged abusive language
said to have been used by the petitioner.
27. The remaining witnesses examined on behalf of the
respondent-management, other than Ms.Vandana Jha, who
allegedly lodged the complaint, have not stated anything about
the alleged threats by the petitioner.
28. From the evidence placed before the Labour Court,
it is evident that the petitioner has not produced any material
to substantiate his contention that he was on leave from
12.01.2013 to 22.01.2013. However, it is not in dispute that
the petitioner had been placed under suspension on 11.01.2013
in connection with a prior complaint allegedly lodged by
another employee of the respondent-Establishment.
- 10 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
29. The present proceeding does not arise out of the
said prior complaint. Significantly, the alleged prior complaint
has not been produced either before the Enquiry Officer or
before the Labour Court.
30. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner
stood suspended as on 11.01.2013. It is to be noticed that
MW.1 has not deposed that she witnessed the petitioner
threatening the Human Resources Manager. She has only
stated that she saw the petitioner entering the chamber of
Ms.Vandana Jha.
31. The petitioner, on the other hand, has categorically
denied having entered the premises, much less the chamber of
Ms.Vandana Jha, on 12.01.2013.
32. MW1 has admitted that CCTV cameras were
installed at prominent places within the Establishment.
However, no CCTV footage has been produced to establish the
presence of the petitioner on the premises on the date of the
alleged incident.
33. Equally, the attendance register maintained at the
entrance has not been produced. Though it is contended that a
- 11 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
suspended employee is not required to mark attendance, it has
emerged in the evidence that employees are required to punch
a card, and the names of others entering the premises are
recorded and entry passes are issued.
34. The evidence on record, including the depositions of
MW.1 and MW.3, indicates that CCTV cameras were installed at
least at prominent locations such as entry points. An attempt is
made to contend that CCTV cameras were not installed in 2013.
Considering the nature of the establishment (a five-star hotel),
it is difficult to accept that basic surveillance infrastructure was
not available, especially when witnesses admitted the presence
of CCTV cameras.
35. In the admitted circumstance that the petitioner
was under suspension from 11.01.2013, the non-production of
materials such as CCTV footage or entries in the register
maintained at the entrance to demonstrate that he entered the
premises on 12.01.2013 strengthens the petitioner's case that
he did not enter the premises.
36. It is also relevant to note that the complainant,
Ms.Vandana Jha, lodged a police complaint on 12.01.2013. The
petitioner asserts that despite repeated calls, the complainant
- 12 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
did not attend the police station. The outcome of the said
complaint is not explained.
37. Though an alternative contention is raised that
CCTV footage is retained only for four days, in a situation
where a police complaint is filed on the same day of the alleged
incident, the footage ought to have been preserved and
produced. This was not done.
38. In the aforesaid factual matrix, it is clear that the
best evidence to establish the petitioner's presence on
12.01.2013--namely, CCTV footage and the entry register--has
been withheld. An adverse inference must therefore be drawn
against the respondent.
39. Without prejudice to the above, the Court has also
considered whether the alleged incident in the chamber of the
HR Manager is independently established.
40. The evidence adduced, apart from the statement of
the complainant, Ms.Vandana Jha, does not establish that the
petitioner threatened Ms.Vandana Jha as alleged.
- 13 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
41. Both MW.1 and MW.2 have not stated anything
about the alleged threat. MW.1 has only stated that the
petitioner refused to accept the memo from the HR Manager.
42. While it is true that disciplinary proceedings are to
be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,
even on such a standard, the finding of misconduct cannot be
sustained in the present case.
43. The Labour Court has failed to consider these
material aspects and has erroneously proceeded on the footing
that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove that he was
elsewhere on the date of the incident.
44. It is true that the petitioner was required to
establish his defence of alibi. It is also true that the order
sanctioning leave has not been produced.
45. However, even according to the respondent, the
petitioner was under suspension from 11.01.2013. It is not the
case of the respondent that, despite suspension, the petitioner
was required to attend the premises.
- 14 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
46. Thus, even if the petitioner fails to establish his
defence of alibi, it does not follow that the respondent's burden
to establish misconduct stands discharged.
47. Even assuming that the petitioner had entered the
premises on the said date, there is no cogent evidence to
conclude that he threatened the Human Resources Manager in
the manner alleged.
48. It is further to be noticed that no past major
misconduct has been established against the petitioner. Even if
the charge were to be taken as proved, the penalty of dismissal
would, in the facts of the case, be wholly disproportionate.
49. The Labour Court in paragraph No.32 of the Award
has assigned reasons for not accepting the plea of alibi by the
workman. The failure on the part of the workman to establish
the plea of alibi by itself will not establish the misconduct. The
further finding that the workman has not challenged the finding
in the domestic enquiry is untenable as the petitioner has
raised the dispute challenging the penalty of dismissal.
50. In Muriadih Colliery (supra), the Apex Court has
dealt with the scope of Section 11A of the Act of 1947 and has
- 15 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
held that using abusive language against the senior officials of
the Management amounts to a grave misconduct and calls for
severe punishment. In the instant case, the Court has
concluded that the charges are not proved. That being the
position, the ratio in the aforementioned judgment does not
apply to the facts of the case.
51. In Pravin Kumar (supra), the Apex Court in
paragraph No.28 of the judgment has reiterated the well
established position relating to judicial review by Constitutional
Courts, as under:
"(28.) It is thus well settled that the Constitutional
Courts while exercising their powers of judicial review
would not assume the role of an appellate authority.
Their jurisdiction is circumscribed by limits of correcting
errors of law, procedural errors leading to manifest
injustice or violation of principles of natural justice. Put
differently, judicial review is not analogous to venturing
into the merits of a case like an appellate authority."
52. The Court has kept the said principle in mind. It is
to be noticed that in the instant case, hardly there is any
consideration by the Labour Court, of the defence put forth by
the petitioner. And the Court has discussed the materials on
- 16 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
record which established the fact that the charges are not
proved and there are no legally acceptable materials to hold
that charges are proved. In such a situation, the Court in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India can certainly set-aside the Award which is perverse and
not supported by legally acceptable materials.
53. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the
finding of misconduct recorded by the Labour Court is perverse,
being based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence.
54. The petitioner has stated that he is not gainfully
employed after termination. The respondent has not placed any
materials to hold that the petitioner is gainfully employed.
Given the fact that the petitioner was a steward in a restaurant,
the Court is of the view that the petitioner with his experience
must have been self employed or must have worked elsewhere.
But nevertheless is entitled to 50% back wages, if not full back
wages. The petitioner is entitled to all other consequential
benefits.
55. Consequently, the impugned award cannot be
sustained.
- 17 -
WP No. 28911 of 2019
56. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned Award dated 30.04.2019 in I.D. No.16/2015 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru is set-aside.
(iii) The order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority is set-aside.
(iv) The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner.
(v) The petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
(vi) The monetary benefits shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/CHS