Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Kar Mobiles Ltd vs Sri G Chandraiah on 13 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 867 OF 2025 (L-TER)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 658 OF 2025 (L-TER)
IN WA No. 867/2025
BETWEEN:
1. KANTHARAJU
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O MUDDAPPA,
SINGONAHALLI COLONY
HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
2. A. SIDDAPPA,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 62 YRS.
KARNATAKA S/O AYYANNAPPA,
MANCHAKAKUPPE,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN:572 168.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. K.B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGEMENT OF
KAR MOBILES LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
PLOT NO. 36, B-37,
HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMAKUR-572 168
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER.
2. SRI G.CHANDRAIAH
S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
3. SRI KEMPARAJU,
S/O GANGAIAH,
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST,
TUMAKUR TALUK & DISTRICT
PIN: 572 168.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.C PRABHAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI. MAHESH B.J, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25/03/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP
NO.15852/2012 AND TO RESTORE THE AWARD DATED
21/03/2012 PASSED IN I.D. NO.36/2009 AND 39/2009 AS AT
ANNEXURE-E RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AND/TO PASS ANY OTHER
ORDER.
IN WA NO. 658/2025
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
KAR MOBILES LTD
(NOW CHANGED AS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
RANE ENGINES VOLVES
PVT. LTD.,) PLOT NO.36,
B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
TUMKUR-572 168.
COMPANY IS REGISTERED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 &
IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF ENGINE
VALVES, REPRESENTED BY SRI. VINAYA CHANDRA
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS)
[email protected]
MOBILE NO.98499 24150
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O. GANGAHANUMAIAH
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR-572 168
2. SRI.KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
S/O.MUDDAPPA
SINGONAHALLI COLONY
HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR 572 168
3. SRI.K G KEMPARAJU
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
S/O.GANGAIAH
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR - 572 168
4. SRI.A SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
S/O.AYYANNAPPA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
WA No. 867 of 2025
C/W WA No. 658 of 2025
HC-KAR
MANCHAKAKUPPE
KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST
TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT.
TUMKUR - 572 168
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH B.J, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3,
SRI. K.B NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 25.03.2025, PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-15852/2012 AND TO RESTORE
THE AWARD DATED 21/03/2012 PASSED IN I.D
NO.36/2009 AND 39/2009 AS AT ANNEXURE-E
RESPECTIVELY PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR
COURT, BENGALURU AND/TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)
1. These intra court appeals are by the
Management as well as employees challenging the order
dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.15852/2012 c/w. W.P.No.47731/2012, whereby
the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
filed by the Management and dismissed the petition filed
by the employees.
2. The facts apposite for consideration as borne
out from the pleadings are as under:
In the dispute raised by the employees, the Labour
Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper, however,
set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the
punishment was shockingly disproportionate and ordered
reinstatement with continuity of service, without
backwages. Aggrieved by which, the Management as well
as the employees preferred the writ petitions.
3. The learned Single Judge, having found that the
case on hand relates to ghearao and assault in the
backdrop of longstanding demand by all workmen for
settlement of wages, has modified the award of the Labour
Court by withholding three increments with cumulative
effect and also by holding the employees entitled for
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
continuity of service only for calculating retiral benefits,
however, affirmed the reinstatement.
4. Aggrieved by which, only the employees, who
had retired from service, have preferred W.A.867/2025
and the Management has preferred W.A.658/2025.
5. We have heard Sri K.B.Narayana Swamy,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant-employees
and Sri B.C.Prabhakara for the Management and Sri
Mahesh B.J., learned counsel appearing for the employees
(working).
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-employees
contended that though the Labour Court had exercised its
discretionary power under Section 11-A of the Industrial
Disputes Act (for brevity, "the Act") judiciously and after
appreciating the evidence, has rightly reinstated the
employees with continuity of service and consequential
benefits and denied the benefit of backwages as a
measure of punishment, the learned Single Judge has
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
erred in interfering with the said award and also erred in
withholding three increments with cumulative effect and
granting continuity of service only for calculation of retiral
benefits and denying consequential benefits, which is
totally disproportionate in the light of the findings of the
Labour Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal of
the employees.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Management
contended that though the Labour Court has observed in
the judgment that the incident took place for two days and
the same was preplanned by the workmen along with
outsiders and assaulted the officers of the Management,
which cannot be ruled out, despite strangely observed that
the punishment of dismissal was shockingly
disproportionate and reinstated the employees. Further,
the learned Single Judge has erred in affirming the
reinstatement and awarding only the minimum
punishment of withholding of three increments with
cumulative effect. Both the Labour Court and the learned
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
Single Judge, having concluded that misconduct the
employees has been proved, would not have invoked
Section 11A of the Act and would not have reinstated the
employees. With these submissions, he prays to allow the
appeal of the Management.
8. As could be gathered from records, before the
Labour Court, the employees have examined four
witnesses and produced 13 documents. The Management
also examined two witnesses and produced 35 documents.
The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence at
length, came to the conclusion that the workmen to get
their demands with regard to settlement of wages
satisfied, insisted the Management and in that process,
there may be exchange of hot words between them and
that the same was without any intention to insult or annoy
anybody. In such circumstances, dismissal of the workmen
from service, is shockingly disproportionate. The said
finding of the Labour Court was also affirmed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
learned Single Judge in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the
impugned order, which reads as under:
"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
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
Labour Court is based on evidence or
no evidence and whether the Labour
Court has exercised Section 11A
jurisdiction judiciously.
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 the power to substitute the
punishment provided the materials
support such decision."
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
9. We have carefully perused the finding of the
Labour Court and the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge. In the instant case, the charges were held to be
proved in the disciplinary enquiry as well as before the
Labour Court. However, the Labour Court, by taking into
consideration the longstanding demand for settlement of
wages and the previous conduct of workmen, has passed
an award reinstating the workmen without any backwages.
Among four employees, two employees have not filed any
appeal against the Labour Court i.e. respondent Nos.1 and
3 in Writ appeal No.658/2025. The employees, who have
attained the age of superannuation, filed
W.A.No.867/2025.
10. The learned Single Judge, while confirming the
order of reinstatement of the employees ordered by the
Labour Court, modified the award with regard to continuity
of service with all consequential benefits by withholding
three annual increments of the workmen with cumulative
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:40763-DB
HC-KAR
effect and entitling the workmen to continuity of service
only for calculating retiral benefits.
11. Having examined the evidence and in view of
the peculiar facts and circumstance of the case, since the
charges against the employees were proved before the
Labour Court, we are of the view that withholding one
increment of the workmen with cumulative effect instead
of three annual increments would meet the ends of justice.
However, the remaining portion of the impugned order of
the learned Single Judge shall remain undisturbed.
12. In the result, the appeal of the Management is
dismissed and the appeal of the employees is allowed in
part.
SD/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
