[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
A.S. Umesha vs The Management on 2 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
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. 10402 OF 2013 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
A.S. UMESHA,
S/O A H SRIKANTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MIG 55,
ANIRUDH, KHB COLONY,
KALLAHALLI, VINOBANAGAR,
SHIMOGA-577204.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH JOIS Y P, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT,
M/S PEARLITE LINERS PVT LTD.,
P B NO.100, NEW THIRTHAHALLI ROAD,
SHIMOGA-577201,
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS
signed by C
HONNUR SAB MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT (BY SRI SHOWRI H R, ADVOCATE FOR
OF
KARNATAKA SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS PERTAINING TO SPECIAL
APPLICATION NO.2/10 IN THE FILE OF INDL TRIBUNAL
MYSORE AND ID NO.6/10 FROM THE LABOUR COURT
MANGALORE (SHIMOGA CAMP) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 09TH FEBRUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-workman has assailed the order dated
23.09.2011 (Annexure-N) passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Mysore (for short, "the Tribunal") in Serial Application
No.2/2010. Said order allowed the application under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the
Act, 1947"), filed by the employer seeking approval of the
penalty of dismissal of the petitioner-workman.
2. The petitioner also assailed the award dated
22.12.2011 (Annexure-P) passed by the Labour Court,
Mangaluru (Shivamogga Camp) in I.D.A No.6/2010, whereby
the claim petition filed under Section 10(4A) of the Act,1947 is
dismissed.
3. The petitioner further challenged the enquiry report
dated 06.01.2010 at Annexure-F (wrongly shown as dated
23.07.2008 in the Writ Petition prayer) and the order of
dismissal dated 10.05.2010 (Annexure-J) passed by the
respondent-employer.
-3-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
4. The petitioner seeks reinstatement with full
backwages and all consequential benefits.
Petitioner's Case in brief:
5. On 03.07.2008, "Bharat bundh" was called by
certain organizations. The day's work was suspended around 11
a.m. as certain group of people (not the employees of the
respondent-Company, but outsiders) demanded closure of work
for the day. At about 11:00 a.m., the respondent-Management
issued a notice declaring closure of the factory for the day and
directed the workmen to attend duty on immediate Sunday,
i.e., 06.07.2008, as a compensatory working day.
6. Many workmen who were attending the work from
6 a.m. and 9 a.m. raised grievance about the Management's
decision to suspend the work for the day and directing the
workmen to attend duty on Sunday, i.e., 06.07.2008, as a
compensatory working day.
7. The petitioner and another M.S.Shashikumar, both
office bearers of the Union, raised a grievance with the
Management on behalf of the workmen, particularly those who
had already reported for duty in the morning shifts
commencing at 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.
-4-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
8. On 04.07.2008, the petitioner was placed under
suspension and was served with a notice alleging misconduct. A
charge-sheet dated 23.07.2008 was issued alleging violation of
the Standing Orders. The petitioner submitted his explanation.
A domestic enquiry was conducted, culminating in a finding of
misconduct. A second show cause notice was issued, to which
the petitioner replied. Thereafter, by order dated 10.05.2010,
the petitioner was dismissed from service.
9. Since an industrial dispute was already pending, the
employer filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Act,1947 in Sl. Application No.2/2010 seeking approval of the
dismissal. Simultaneously, the petitioner-employee raised an
industrial dispute under Section 10(4A) of the Act,1947, in I.D.
No.6/2010. The Tribunal in Sl. Application No.2/2010 granted
approval for dismissing the workman, and the Labour Court
dismissed the petitioner-workman's claim.
Respondent's Case in brief:-
10. The respondent-Management contends that the
petitioner, along with another workman, instigated the
workforce to oppose the Management's decision to treat
-5-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
03.07.2008 as a weekly rest day and 06.07.2008 as a
compensatory working day.
11. It is alleged that a group of persons (not the
employees of the respondent Company, but outsiders) who
were insisting for closure of factory on account of Bharat Bundh
forcibly entered the factory premises, and the petitioner
actively instigated such entry and confronted the management.
Respondent further alleged that the petitioner obstructed the
General Manager's vehicle and insisted for declaration of
03.07.2008 as a paid holiday and refused to accept 06.07.2008
as a working day.
12. According to the Management, such acts constituted
grave misconduct, warranting dismissal, and the same has
been duly upheld by the Tribunal and the Labour Court.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:
(i) The findings of misconduct are not supported by
reliable evidence;
(ii) Material discrepancies have been ignored;
(iii) The petitioner merely espoused legitimate
grievances of workmen, as a union leader;
-6-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
(iv) The action of the Management amounts to
victimization; and
(v) In any event, the punishment of dismissal is grossly
disproportionate.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following judgments:-
(a) Rama Kant Misra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and
others1
(b) Ved Prakash Gupta Vs Delton Cable India (P)
Ltd.2
(c) Color-Chem Ltd. Vs A. L Alaspurkar3
(d) Collector Singh Vs. L.M.L Ltd Kanpur4
15. Defending the impugned orders, learned counsel for
the respondent submits that:
(i) The misconduct is grave and duly proved in a fair
and proper enquiry;
(ii) The petitioner instigated unlawful conduct and
facilitated entry of outsiders;
(iii) Concurrent findings cannot be interfered in
supervisory jurisdiction; and
1
(1982) 3 SCC 346
2
(1984) 2 SCC 569
3
(1998) 3 SCC 192
4
(2015) 2 SCC 410
-7-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
(iv) No perversity is demonstrated.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the
following judgments:-
(a) John D' Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road
5
Transport Corporation
(b) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs
Raju6
(c) Management of West Bokaro Colliery of TISCO
Ltd. Vs Ram Pravesh Singh7
(d) Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs N.B Naravade
and others8
(e) Hombe Gowda Education Trust and others Vs.
State of Karnataka and others9
(f) National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs State of
Rajasthan and others10
(g) Chairman, State Bank of India and others vs All
Orissa State Bank Officers Association and
others11
(h) President Labour Organization of HAL Vs The
Management of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.12
(i) Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs.
A. Ramanna13
5
(2019) 18 SCC 47
6
MANU/KA/9081/2019
7
(2008) 2 SCC 729
8
(2005) 3 SCC 134
9
(2006) 1 SCC 430
10
(2000) 1 SCC 371
11
(2002) 5 SCC 669
12
ILR 2005 KAR 4163
-8-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
(j) North East Karnataka Road Transport
14
Corporation Vs. M. Nagangouda
(k) J.K Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P Agarwal and others15
17. The Court has considered the judgments cited and
has kept in mind the principles laid down.
18. The Court has considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record.
19. The Tribunal, while granting approval under Section
33(2)(b) of the Act,1947, has recorded a finding that the
domestic enquiry was fair and proper.
20. The Labour Court has also noted that the petitioner
conceded the fairness of the enquiry.
21. The Labour Court has examined the plea of
victimization in the light of settled principles referred to in the
award and rejected the petitioner's claim.
22. It is well settled that concurrent findings of fact,
particularly on misconduct, ought not to be interfered with
unless shown to be perverse or not supported by evidence.
13
ILR 2001 KAR 2914
14
(2007) 10 SCC 765
15
(2007) 2 SCC 433
-9-
WP No. 10402 of 2013
23. The witnesses examined on behalf of the
respondent-establishment would point to the confrontation by
the petitioner and it is possible to conclude that the petitioner
instigated the workmen not to leave the factory premises till
the management accepts the workmen's demands. The
evidence also leads to the conclusion that the petitioner also
joined hands with the outsiders who had trespassed in to the
premises. On consideration of the records, this Court finds no
infirmity in the conclusion that the misconduct stands proved.
Proportionality of Punishment:
24. The question that remains is with regard to the
proportionality of punishment.
25. The incident occurred around 11.30 a.m., after the
management announced closure of the work on account of
Bharat Bundh on 03.07.2008. By the time management
announced the bundh, work had already commenced in 6 a.m,
9 a.m, and 10.30 a.m. shifts.
26. The grievance raised by the workmen, particularly
those who had substantially worked, for declaration of the day
as a paid holiday cannot, in itself, be said to be unreasonable in
the given circumstances. The petitioner being the officer bearer
- 10 -
WP No. 10402 of 2013
has engaged himself with the Management in airing the
workmen's grievance.
27. However, the materials on record indicate that, the
petitioner exceeded the limits of lawful bargain and obstructed
the managerial personnel. The petitioner also appear to have
joined with outsiders in insisting the Management to meet
workmen's demand. Such acts constituted misconduct.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that
the Award passed by the Labour Court relating to another
employee is upheld in W.P. No.40217/2012. The Court is of the
view that the fact that by the time the holiday was declared on
03.07.2008, the workers in the morning shift had already
worked in the factory and they made a request to treat
03.07.2008 as a working day and the petitioner being an office
bearer of the Union, brought to the notice of the Management
the demand made by the said workmen is not considered by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned
case. Hence, the Court is of the view that the said judgment
cannot be treated as the binding precedent as it is not
forthcoming from the said judgment that the aforementioned
facts are brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench.
- 11 -
WP No. 10402 of 2013
29. The Court has also considered the ratio laid down in
the judgments cited on behalf of the respondent.
30. It is true that the law is settled that the Court will
not interfere with the penalty imposed by the employer unless
it is shockingly disproportionate. However, if there are
mitigating circumstances, then the Court may take into account
the said factor as held in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra). It
is noticed that in Mahindra & Mahindra (supra), the Apex
Court has held in the facts of the said case no case is made out
to interfere with the penalty of dismissal but the Apex Court
has reiterated the principle that, if there are mitigating
circumstances, the penalty can be reduced.
31. The fact that some of the employees had worked in
the morning shift by the time the closure for the day was
announced and thereafter, the workmen made a request to
treat the said day as a working day and petitioner as the office
bearer having approached the Management to discuss the
grievances raised by the workmen to treat the said day as
working day is one of the mitigating circumstances to take a
lenient view.
- 12 -
WP No. 10402 of 2013
32. At the same time, the surrounding circumstances--
including the bundh, entry of outsiders, and the charged
atmosphere--appear to have contributed to the escalation. The
petitioner's role, though blameworthy, cannot be viewed in
isolation from these contextual factors.
33. It is also relevant that the petitioner was about 45
years of age at the time of the incident and that no prior
serious misconduct resulting in major penalty is attributed to
him.
34. In the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that the punishment of dismissal is
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. The ends of
justice would be met by substituting the punishment of
dismissal with a lesser penalty, so as to balance discipline with
fairness and proportionality.
35. The paragraph No.2 of the order dated 23.09.2011
which has attained finality would indicate that Rs.14,000/- was
paid to the workman which include one month's salary and
exgratia amount of Rs.3,400/-. If it is so the petitioner was
earning around Rs.10,000/- per month at the time of dismissal
from service.
- 13 -
WP No. 10402 of 2013
36. The workman was aged around 45 when he was
removed from service. In other words, the petitioner had
around 13 years of service before attaining superannuation.
The Court has taken a view that the penalty of dismissal is
disproportionate to the misconduct proved. However, the
misconduct is established. That being the case, the petitioner is
not entitled to full back wages and there cannot be any
reinstatement as the petitioner has attained the age of
superannuation. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is
entitled to a reasonable compensation.
37. Taking into account his salary at the time of
dismissal and the tenure of around 13 years left, and also
taking into consideration that the petitioner is guilty of
misconduct and also taking into account the additional
statement of objection dated 08.03.2016 filed by the
respondent/employer, and having regard to the fact that the
petitioner will be getting some amount without having done any
work for the respondent, the Court is of the view that
Rs.3,00,000/- would be the reasonable compensation that the
petitioner would be entitled to.
38. Hence the following:
- 14 -
WP No. 10402 of 2013
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned award dated 23.09.2011 on the
file of Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Sl.
Application No.02/2010 is set-aside in part.
(iii) The findings on misconduct is confirmed.
(iv) The petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three lakhs Only) towards
compensation. The amount if not paid within
45 days from today shall carry interest @ 6%
per annum from 26.02.2013 i.e., the date of
filing of the Writ Petition till the date of
payment.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
