Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Kar Mobiles Ltd vs Sri G Chandraiah on 25 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.15852 OF 2012 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.47731 OF 2012 (L-TER)
IN WP NO.15852/2012:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF KAR MOBILES LTD.,
PLOT NO.36, B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR-572168,
REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-HR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH,
S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. SRI KANTHARAJU,
S/O MUDDAPPA,
SINGONAHALLI COLONY,
HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
3. SRI K G KEMPARAJU,
S/O GANGAIAHKOLIHALLI,
HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
-2-
4. SRI A A.SIDDAPPA,
S/O AYYANNAPPA,
MANCHAKAKUPPE, KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SATHISH B, ADV. FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED CALL FOR RECORDS
LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD DTD.21.3.12,
PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID
NOS.36 TO 39/2009 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC.
IN WP NO.47731/2012:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH,
S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. SRI K.G KEMPARAJU,
S/O GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SATHISH B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF KAR MOBILES LTD.,
PLOT NO.36, B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL
AREA, TUMKUR-572168.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DT.21.3.12, VIDE ANN-A
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL.LABOUR COURT JUDGE,
BANGALORE IN ID.NO.36/09, & ID.NO.38/09 IN SO FAR
AS NOT AWARDING FULL BACKWAGES FROM THE DATE
OF DISMISSAL TILL REINSTATEMENT AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03RD FEBRUARY, 2025 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV JUDGMENT
These petitions are arising from the award passed by
the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.Nos.36 to 39/2009. In
terms of the impugned award, punishment of dismissal from
employment imposed on the workmen pursuant to
disciplinary enquiry have been set-aside and the workmen
have been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service
and other consequential benefits. However backwages are
declined. Hence, the Management is before this Court in W.P
No.15852/2012 assailing the aforementioned award, for
reinstatement.
2. Two workmen - G.Chandraiah and K.G.
Kemparaju who raised industrial dispute No.36/2009 and
38/2009 respectively are before this Court in W.P
NO.47781/2012 assailing the award declining the back
wages. For the sake of convenience, the Management is
referred to as 'the petitioner' and the workmen are referred
to as 'respondents' in both petitions.
3. In terms of the order passed by the Management
on 28.05.2009, the respondents have been dismissed from
service pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, the
respondents raised the said dispute Nos.36 to 39/2009
before the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as the
'Act of 1947' for short).
4. The Labour Court held that the disciplinary
enquiry is fair and proper. The said finding has not been
questioned by the respondents. Later, the parties were
permitted to lead evidence relating to the victimization
alleged by the workmen. On appreciation of evidence, the
Labour Court concluded that the charges of misconduct
against the respondents/workmen were established however,
found that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the
petitioner is grossly disproportionate, to the misconduct as
such, ordered for reinstatement by setting-aside the order of
dismissal from service.
5. The facts are as under:
- The respondents were employed under the petitioner
in its plant at Tumakuru. Wage settlement between the
Management and the Union had expired on 30.06.2007. The
Union had presented new set of demands for the
Management w.e.f. 01.07.2007. However, for 15 months
since the expiry of the previous settlement, the demands
made by the Union were not yet settled. Despite this, the
workmen claimed that they continued to work without
affecting the production.
6. It is stated, the Management on 16.09.2008,
issued show cause notice to the respondents alleging that,
on 19.08.2008, the respondents ghearaod the H R
Department Officials for sometime in the premises of the
petitioner. The notice also alleged that respondents abused
the Management staff in filthy language and on 20.08.2008,
the respondents along with some outsiders forced their entry
into the factory premises and created violent atmosphere
and assaulted couple of Management staff.
7. On 20.08.2008, the respondents were placed
under suspension pending enquiry. The respondents denied
the charges and requested for supply of the copies of the
documents which formed the basis for issuing charge sheet.
It is stated that the documents were not furnished and later,
they were furnished at the time of enquiry. It is stated that
the explanation provided by the respondents were not
accepted and domestic enquiry was conducted.
8. Parties led evidence and the enquiry officer has
returned the verdict of guilty. Second show cause notice was
issued. The respondents replied to the said notice denying
the charges. However, the respondents were dismissed from
service.
9. In the dispute raised, the Labour Court held that
the enquiry was fair and proper. The Labour Court, based on
evidence led before it, held that charges of misconduct were
proved. The Labour Court held that the punishment is
shockingly disproportionate, set-aside the order of dismissal
and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but
without backwages.
10. The backwages are denied from the date of
dismissal till one month from the date of award becomes
enforceable.
11. The respondents No.2 and 4 in W.P
No.15852/2012 have accepted the award denying the
backwages. Respondents No.1 and 3 in W.P No.15852/2012
have assailed the award by filing W.P No.47731/2012.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
referring to the impugned award would contend that the
Labour Court has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and
the charges are also held to be proved. Said findings have
attained finality. This being the position, the Labour Court
could not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 11A of
the Act of 1947 to interfere with the punishment of dismissal
imposed by the Management.
13. It is urged that no ground what-so-ever is made
out to interfere with the penalty as the charges levelled
against the workmen were grave and the workmen assaulted
the Management staff with the aid of outsiders and they
barged into the premises with outsiders and such it is not a
minor misconduct attracting lesser punishment and the
punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to
the misconduct of the respondents.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also
urge that the order of reinstatement with continuity of
service, consequential benefits is fully unjustified in a
situation where the Labour Court has held that the enquiry is
fair and proper and charges are established. Learned counsel
would place reliance on the following judgments:
1. (2006) 12 SCC 570 - The Managing Director, The North
East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. K.
Maruti
2. (2008) SSCC 569 - Chairman and MD V.S.P and Ors.
Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu
3. (2002) 10 SCC 330 - Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs.
Ghanashyam Sharma
4. (2008) II LLJ 945 SC - Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs.
Management of Usha Breco Ltd., and another.
5. (1995) I LLJ 233 - Karnataka HC - Bank of India,
Regional Office Vs. D.Padmanabhudu and another.
6. (1995) I LLJ 1076 - Karnataka HC - D Padmanabhudu
Vs. Bank of India and another.
7. W.P.No.10082/2012 - Management of India Institute of
Management, Bangalore and others Vs. D.Manikya
8. MANU/SC/0741/2007 - J.K.Synthetics Ltd., Vs.
K.P.Agarawal and ors.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents/workmen
on the other hand would contend that the Labour Court is
justified in modifying the penalty of dismissal from service
and ordering reinstatement as the alleged incident took place
in the factual background that the wage revision was
pending for more than one and half years. If any incident
has happened in a spur of moment, that cannot be a ground
to terminate the services of the workmen who had otherwise
unblemished career. He also urged that the Labour Court has
taken note of the relevant factors into consideration and
exercised its discretion judiciously. It is further submitted
that the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India is only confined to the decision
making process by the Labour Court and not the actual
decision and nothing is pointed out to hold that the
impugned award is arbitrary or impermissible in the light of
evidence placed before the Court. Thus, it is urged to dismiss
the petition.
16. The learned counsel for the workmen in W.P
No.47781/2012 urged that the order denying backwages is
wholly unjustified as no reasons are assigned to deny the
- 10 -
backwages. It is urged that in view of law laid down in
Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapa
Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Labour Court
ought to have awarded backwages as the dismissal from
service is held to be unjustified. It is urged that refusal to
award backwages is also a punishment and such punishment
can be imposed only by assigning reasons based on evidence
and no reasons are available to deny the backwages.
17. This Court has considered the contentions raised
at the bar and perused the records.
18. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court has
recorded the findings that the disciplinary enquiry was fair
and proper. It is also noticed that the Labour Court has
found that the charges are proved.
19. It is well-settled principle of law that the Courts
will not interfere with the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority as long as the disciplinary authority
under the applicable Standing Orders, Rules or Regulations
has the power to impose the punishment so imposed. If the
disciplinary authority has no power to impose the
punishment so imposed, then, the Courts will certainly
- 11 -
interfere with the punishment. However, in exercise of power
conferred under the Standing Orders or the Rules or
Regulations, if the punishment is imposed, then, ordinarily
the Court will not interfere with the punishment unless it is
established that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate.
20. In the instant case, the power of the
Management to pass an order of dismissal for the
misconduct which is established is not in dispute. Thus, the
questions need to be answered are:
(a) Whether the punishment from
employment imposed by the employer is
shockingly disproportionate calling for exercise of
power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947?.
(b) Whether the Labour Court is justified in
denying full backwages after holding that the order
of dismissal from employment is disproportionate
to the misconduct?
21. The Labour Court while interfering with the
penalty of dismissal has taken into consideration, the past
misconduct of the four workmen. While considering the case
of A.Siddappa, who is respondent No.4 in Writ Petition
- 12 -
No.15852/2012, the Labour Court has referred to the
previous charge sheet which is marked at Ex.M.21. That
relates to an incident of the year 1994. It has also referred
to Ex.M.8, the finding of the domestic enquiry held against
A.Siddappa wherein A.Siddappa was found guilty of charges
and one increment for one year was stopped though the
Management felt that the misconduct in the said case
warranted dismissal of the workman.
22. The Labour Court noticed that the earlier proved
misconduct took place 14 years prior to the incident under
scrutiny. And the Labour Court took the view that in the said
period of 14 years, no misconduct is alleged against
A.Siddappa and concluded that one cannot hold that
A.Siddappa did not improve his conduct.
23. As far as remaining workmen are concerned, the
Labour Court noticed that on few occasions earlier, the
workmen remained unauthorizedly absent for work which
resulted in Management issuing memo and workmen
tendered apology and the cases were closed against those
workmen.
- 13 -
24. As far as the police complaint at Ex.M31 against
Kantaraju - the petitioner in I.D No.37/2009, the Labour
Court noticed that it is the dispute between two private
individuals and nothing to do with the petitioner.
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 Labour Court is based on
- 14 -
evidence or no evidence and whether the Labour Court has
exercised Section 11A jurisdiction judiciously.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Usha Breco Mazdur
Sangh supra and Regional Manager, RSRTC supra, to
contend that the order of dismissal from service/employment
passed by the Management should not be lightly be
interfered under Section 11A of the Act of 1947.
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
- 15 -
the power to substitute the punishment provided the
materials support such decision.
28. On consideration of overall materials on record,
it is evident that the wage settlement had expired one and
half years ago and the discussion relating to revision of
wages was pending. It is quite possible that some amount of
frustration might have been built among the workmen and it
got triggered on the day of the incident. Though, this Court
is not justifying such conduct, while called upon to set aside
the award for reinstatement, passed by the Labour Court,
this Court holds that that the view taken by the Labour Court
is not something impermissible given the facts of the case. It
is true that the Labour Court will not normally interfere with
the penalty in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of
the Act of 1947. However, it has the jurisdiction to interfere
with the penalty in appropriate cases where the penalty is
grossly of shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
29. As far as the ratio in Regional Manager,
RSRTC supra, it is to be noticed that in the said case, the
Apex Court was dealing with the quantum of punishment
imposed on the conductor of a bus who failed to issue tickets
- 16 -
to the passengers. The Apex Court noticed that issuance of
ticket being the main duty of the conductor, the High Court
is not justified in reversing the penalty of dismissal.
30. In the instant case, the misconduct alleged is not
in respect of the main duty. The misconduct alleged is the
assault on some of the officials. Hence, on facts, the case is
distinguishable.
31. Taking into consideration that the incident took
place in the backdrop of long standing demand for
settlement of wages has exercised the discretion to reinstate
all employees including A.Siddappa invoking Section 11A of
the Act of 1947. Though, one may argue that the
Management is justified in imposing penalty of termination,
the discretion exercised by the Labour Court invoking Section
11A of the Act of 1947 to direct reinstatement without
backwages cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction or
impermissible exercise of jurisdiction. The award passed by
the Labour Court for reinstatement is also one plausible view
in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence,
this Court does not find reasons to interfere with the
- 17 -
discretion exercised by the Labour Court insofar as award for
reinstatement.
32. Learned counsel for the workmen has relied on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Tin Works
Private Limited vs The Employees of M/S Hindustan
Tin Works (AIR 1979 SC 75) to contend that workmen are
entitled to full backwages in case of illegal termination. It is
to be noticed that it is not a case where the termination is
set aside on the premise that enquiry is not fair and proper
and charges of misconduct are not proved. In Hindustan
Tin Works supra, it was a case of illegal retrenchment and
not a case of dismissal on account of misconduct. Hence, the
ratio in the aforementioned case does not come to the aid of
the workmen.
33. The submission of the learned counsel for the
workmen based on the law in Deepali Gundu supra, also
does not come to the aid of the workmen. In the very same
judgment, the Apex Court has held that the Labour Court in
its discretion may deny backwages when order of dismissal is
substituted by reinstatement despite the charges of
misconduct being proved. It is indeed true that the Labour
- 18 -
Court has not assigned reasons for denying the backwages.
However what is required to be noticed is the Labour Court
held that the charges are proved and said finding has
attained finality. In such situation, if the reinstatement is
ordered as a lesser punishment, the payment of backwages
is not automatic. In such situation, the principle of 'no work
no pay' apply. Despite this, if the Labour Court is to award
backwages, then there has to be the reasons.
34. The further submission based on the judgment of
the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Ram Daras
Yadav [(2010) 2 SCC 236] is not helpful to the workmen. In
the said case, the High Court has recorded a finding that the
incident alleged against the employee is not proved as the
alleged victim had put it in writing that the incident has not
taken place. The Apex Court in its judgment has held that it
is not in a position to verify the veracity of the rival
contentions and in those circumstances granted 50%
backwages. In the case on hand, the charges are held to be
proved and there is no challenge to the said finding. Two
workmen though have assailed the award; the challenge is
- 19 -
confined to the part of the award denying backwages and
nothing more.
35. In Hindustan Motors Vs Tapan Kumar
[(2002) 6 SCC 41], the Apex Court dealing with a fact
situation where the Labour Court having held that the
misconduct is not established, passed an award of
reinstatement and directed full backwages and took a view
that even in such cases, where the charges are not
established, the award for full payment of backwages is not
justifiable and awarded only 50% backwages. In the instant
case, the charges are held to be proved in the disciplinary
enquiry as well as before the Labour Court. Hence, the said
judgment cannot be applied to pay backwages.
36. As already noticed, the Management was enabled
under law to impose penalty of dismissal. The Labour Court
by taking into consideration, the long standing demand for
settlement of wages and the previous conduct of workmen
has passed an award for reinstatement. Under these
circumstances, the Labour Court is justified in denying the
backwages.
- 20 -
37. However, the question that needs consideration
is, "Whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding
continuity of service and all consequential benefits"?
38. In D.Padhamanabhudu Vs Bank of India
(Writ Appeal No.2594/1994), the Division bench of this Court
held that after having found the workmen guilty of
misconduct, the Labour Court is not justified in reinstating
the workman substituting the penalty of dismissal.
39. However, a fine line of distinction does exist
between the case on hand and the one in the judgment cited
above. In the said case, an employee working in bank,
indulged in misappropriation and same cannot be equated
with a ghearao and assault though the assault is also a
misconduct attracting a penalty of dismissal.
40. In Management of Indian Institute of
Management Vs Manikya (Writ Appeal No.379/2010), the
Division bench of this Court held that after having found the
workmen guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court is not
justified in awarding backwages after substituting the
penalty of dismissal with reinstatement. In addition, the
Court has also held that the benefit of continuity of service
- 21 -
cannot be granted and if granted, it can be granted only for
calculating the retirement benefits and not for increments
etc, when the penalty of dismissal is substituted for
reinstatement. In that case, the misconduct was in
subordination and rude behavior. The workman in that case
had two years of service left. In this case, the misconduct
alleged is slightly grave, however in the backdrop of
longstanding demand by all workmen, for settlement of
wages.
41. This Court is also conscious of the fact that
Courts will not impose the penalty and it is for the employer
to impose the penalty. However, in Management of Indian
Institute of Management supra, the Division bench of this
Court noticing the fact that the workmen had only two years
of service, imposed penalty of withholding two increments
with cumulative effect. Among the respondents, one has
retired in 2021, another due to retire in June 2025, another
in 2031 and the last one in 2034.
42. The dispute is pending since 2009. Hence this
Court is of the view that three increments with cumulative
effect should balance the conflicting claims.
- 22 -
43. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.15852/2012 is allowed-in-
part.
(ii) The award dated 21.03.2012 in I.D.Nos.36 to
39/2012 on the file of Principal Labour Court,
Bengaluru, so far as reinstatement of the
respondents/workmen is confirmed.
(iii) The three annual increments of the
respondents/workmen are withheld with
cumulative effect. Accordingly the impugned
award for continuity of service with all
consequential benefits is modified.
(iv) The respondents/workmen are entitled to
continuity of service only for calculating
retirement benefits.
(v) The wages payable from the date of award of
the Labour Court (after taking into
consideration the effect of withholding three
annual increments with cumulative effect )
shall be paid to the respondents after
adjusting Section 17B wages already paid.
(vi) If the monetary benefits payable to workmen
is less than Section 17B wages already paid,
the petitioner shall not be entitled to refund.
- 23 -
(vii) The respondent No.4 - A.Siddappa has
attained the age of superannuation and is not
entitled to reinstatement but only entitled to
monetary benefits as held above.
(viii) Writ Petition No.47731/2012 is dismissed.
(ix) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
Brn/THM
