Karnataka High Court
Veerappa S/O.Gangappa Javali vs The Management Of Loka-Shikshana Trust on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
WP No. 67613 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 67613 OF 2010 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
1. VEERAPPA S/O. GANGAPPA JAWALI,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
1A. SUVARNA W/O VEERAPPA JAWALI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HUBBALLI.
1B. SHIVANAND S/O VEERAPPA JAWALI,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. HUBBALLI.
1C. GANGADHAR S/O VEERAPPA JAWALI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. HUBBALLI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN THE MANAGEMENT OF LOKA-SHIKSHANA TRUST,
KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH
KOPPIKAR ROAD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HUBBALLI.
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.11.19 ... RESPONDENT
12:20:59 +0530
(BY SRI. T.A. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION EITHER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR IN ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, BE ISSUED QUASHING THE AWARD
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REF. NO.1/2005
DATED: 18/05/2010 AT ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
TO PAY FULL BACK WAGES WITH OTHER BENEFITS WITH ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL FRINGE BENEFITS.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
WP No. 67613 of 2010
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
This petition is filed assailing the part of the award denying
backwages despite the order of termination being set aside and
employee was directed to be reinstated.
2. The workman who is now no more was working with
respondent/employer as sweeper from 1983. The workman was
removed from employment on 07.08.1990 on the charges of
attempt to theft.
3. The workman raised an industrial dispute in the year
2006. The Labour Court, on considering the materials on record
concluded that charges are not established and gave a clean chit
and directed reinstatement by setting aside the penalty of
dismissal from employment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
since the workman is given a clean chit, the award passed by the
Labour Court denying backwages is without any justification.
Learned counsel would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
HC-KAR
Deepali Gundu Surwase vs Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya & Ors.1 to contend that in
case the workman is found to be not guilty, the benefit of
payment of backwages consequent to an award of setting aside
penalty of dismissal should be automatic, and only in exceptional
cases, backwages can be denied and no exceptional case is made
out by the respondent/employer to deny the backwages.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that
the workman had not made a claim that he is not gainfully
employed after he was removed from employment. In the cross
examination workman has admitted that immediately after the
dismissal from employment he was selling certain articles as
street vendor and he had an income of Rs.30 - Rs.50 per day, as
such the contention relating to backwages is not available.
6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
2013 (10) SCC 324
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
HC-KAR
7. The finding of the Labour Court that the workman is
not guilty has attained finality as the employer's challenge to the
award has failed as the writ petition is dismissed.
8. The Labour Court has directed reinstatement and
also granted continuity of service however, backwages is denied.
The Labour Court has denied bank wages on two grounds:
(a) Workman has not pleaded that he is not gainfully
employed;
(b) Workman has admitted in the cross-examination that he
is earning Rs.30 - Rs.50 per day.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that when workman was removed from employment in the year
1990, he was earning around Rs.1,400/- per month as salary.
Thus, it is his contention income of that Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- per
day, admitted by the workman would translate into a figure
which is almost same as the salary earned by the workman, as
such, workman is not entitled to backwages.
10. It is relevant to notice that Rs.1,400/- per month
salary paid to the workman was in the year 1990. The admission
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
HC-KAR
in the cross-examination is when the workman was cross-
examined in the year 2010. The cross examination is not specific
as to in which year the workman was earning Rs.30/- to Rs.50/-
per day. Since the cross-examination was held in the year 2010,
the Court would assume that the statement made by the
workman that he had an income of Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- per day is
for the year 2010.
11. In that view of the matter, the contention that the
workman was gainfully employed cannot be accepted. It is true
that the workman had some income and that income cannot be
equated with gainful employment. Since, the petitioner had to
sustain himself and his family he had to earn something. Thus, in
case he was earning Rs 30-40 a day in 2010 as a street vendor
said earning cannot come in the way of denying backwages.
12. It is noticed that the employer had also filed a Writ
Petition challenging the award and said Writ Petition
No.65781/2010 was dismissed on merits in the year 2024 and
the operation of the award was stayed in the said proceeding.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
HC-KAR
13. In these circumstances, the petitioner was not
reinstated. Admittedly, Section 17B wages were not paid to the
workman.
14. It is also required to be noticed that though the
workman was removed from employment in the year 1990, he
raised a dispute in the year 1999 i.e. after 9 years. No proper
explanation is forthcoming from the workman as to what made
him to raise a dispute in the year 1999, nine years after the
removal from employment and not within a reasonable period.
15. Under these circumstances, to balance the equity, the
Court is of the view that the workman is entitled to 50% of the
backwages, and not 100% backwages which he would have
otherwise been entitled had he raised a dispute within a
reasonable period.
16. Hence the following:
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15531
HC-KAR
ii. The amount due in terms of this order and the award
payable to the petitioner shall be paid within 45 days
from today.
iii. Failing to comply the order, the employer is liable to
pay interest @ 7% per annum on the amount due,
from the date of superannuation or from the date of
death, whichever is earlier, till the date of payment.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
CT:BCK
