Karnataka High Court
Sri H M Nagesh vs The Management Of Ksic on 15 November, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2022 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2022 (L-TER)
IN W.A.NO.404/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF KSIC
CENTRAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Digitally signed
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
by SHARADA KSIC SILK WEAVING FACTORY,
VANI B MANDNAWADI ROAD,
Location: HIGH MYSORE - 570 008.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY
SATISH KUMAR,
GENERAL MANAGER (P) (I/C)
KSIC LTD., HEAD OFFICE,
3RD AND 4TH FLOOR,
PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING,
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA.,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
AND:
SRI. H. M. NAGESH,
S/O. SRI. NAGENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 2656,
3RD CROSS, K.G. KOPPAL,
MYSORE.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V S NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 07.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 36902/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 36902/2011 (L-TER) AND ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.,
IN W.A.NO.425/2022:
BETWEEN:
SRI. H M NAGESH,
S/O SRI NAGENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2656, 3RD CROSS,
K G KOPPALU,MYSURU-570 005.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. V S NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF KSIC,
CENTRAL OFFICE, M G ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
KSIC SILK WEAVING FACTORY,
MANDNAWADI ROAD,
MYSURU-570 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED
07.03.2022 IN WP No-36902/2011 (L-TER) TO THE EXTENT
THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No-36902/2011 (L-TER) IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY GRANTING FULL BACK WAGES TO THE
APPELLANT AND ETC.,
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal in W.A.No.404/2022 is by the
Management and the companion Appeal in
W.A.No.425/2022 is by the workman. These two
appeals seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge's
order dated 07.03.2022 in workman's W.P.No.36902/2011
(L-TER) wherein Labour Court Award dated 01.12.2010
was impugned. The operative portion of the order reads
as under:
a) For the unauthorised absence, the
petitioner is imposed with penalty of
withholding 3 annual increments.
b) The respondent shall reinstate the
petitioner within four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, with continuity
of service and 40% of backwages from the date
of his termination till the date of his
reinstatement."
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
2. Shorn off the thickness of the appeal books, the
matter lies in a narrow compass: The award of the Labour
Court made presumably under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is modified by the Writ
Court, as already indicated above, under Articles 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India. In such a circumstance,
Court is not recording a finding to give a clean chit to the
workman. Apparently, the penalty is reduced to the
imposition of 3 annual increments and the workman is
directed to be reinstated. If that be so, we fail to
understand how the direction for payment of back wages
could be issued. This view gains support from a catena of
rulings in the realm of Industrial Law.
3. The Apex Court in more or less a similar fact
matrix in OM PAL SINGH vs DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
(2020) 3 SCC 103 at paragraphs 11 and 12 has observed
as under:
"11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr., (2007) 2
SCC 433, this Court dealt with the issue regarding the
entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and
consequential benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows:
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
"17. There is also a misconception that whenever
reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service'
and 'consequential benefits' should follow, as a
matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting
several promotions as a 'consequential benefit' to a
person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and
who does not have the benefit of necessary
experience for discharging the 6 (2007) 2 SCC 433
8 | Page higher duties and functions of
promotional posts, is seldom visualized while
granting consequential benefits automatically.
Whenever courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement,
they should apply their judicial mind to the facts
and circumstances to decide whether 'continuity of
service' and/or 'consequential benefits' should also
be directed. We may in this behalf refer to the
decisions of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa
Goud [2003 (2) SCC 212], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul
Kareem [2005 (6) SCC 36] and R.S.R.T.C. v.
Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta [2005 (7) SCC 406]."
12. It was further held in the said judgment that if
reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser
punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor
consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary
consequence of such reinstatement. This Court went on to hold
that where the misconduct was held to be proved,
reinstatement by itself is a consequential benefit arising from
imposition of a lesser punishment. However, this Court was of
the opinion that award of back wages for the period when the
employee has not worked may amount to rewarding the
delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking
action against the misconduct committed by the employee,
which should be avoided."
4. There is yet another reason why we are inclined
to grant indulgence in the appeal of the Management and
decline interference in that of the Workman: the learned
counsel appearing for the Management with appreciable
fairness submits that the Workman would be reinstated in
NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB
WA No. 404 of 2022
C/W WA No. 425 of 2022
service within four weeks, of course without any
backwages. However, that has to be with only the
continuity of service.
In the above circumstances, the Management's
W.A.No.404/2022 (L-TER) is partly favoured and the
direction to pay 40% of backwages is set at naught;
however, rest of the directions are left intact. The
Workman's W.A.No.425/2022 (L-TER) is dismissed, as
being devoid of merits.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
