[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Management Of M/S Zenith Textiles vs Sri T M Lokesh on 2 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
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. 13011 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
M/S ZENITH TEXTILES
13/A TO 13/C, NANJANGUD INDUSTRIAL AREA,
NANJANGUD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MILL MANAGER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASUKI K N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI T M LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O SRI. MUNDARAMAIAH,
NO. 105, TIRUMAGONDANA
VILLAGE, ADANAHALLI POST,
TUIBUGEREHOBLI,
Digitally
signed by C DODDABALLAPURA TALUK.
HONNUR SAB ...RESPONDENT
Location: (BY SRI L MURALIDHAR PESHWA A/W
HIGH COURT
OF MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATES)
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD
DATED 27.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSURU
IN REF.NO.15/2017 I.E., (ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 17TH FEBRUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-Company has assailed the award dated
27.01.2020 in Reference No.15/2017 on the file of the Labour
Court, Mysuru, directing reinstatement of the respondent-
workman, whereby the penalty of dismissal from service dated
16.11.2006 has been set aside.
2. The award also directs reinstatement without back
wages and allowances from the date of dismissal till
reinstatement. However, the award directs continuity of
service. The respondent-workman has accepted the award. In
other words, the finding on misconduct is accepted by the
workman.
3. The petitioner-employer is before this Court
assailing the award primarily on the premise that the dispute is
raised 10 years after the date of dismissal, and the Labour
Court could not have interfered with the punishment when the
misconduct is established.
4. The respondent-workman joined the petitioner
Company as an Operator in the year 1995. The petitioner-
Company issued a charge memo dated 07.04.2006 to the
-3-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
respondent alleging certain misconducts from 03.02.2006 to
11.02.2006.
5. The charge memo dated 07.04.2006 contains the
following charges:
(a) Unauthorized absence from the workplace during
working hours;
(b) Causing damage or loss to the company's property;
(c) Deliberate slowing down of work and instigating or
coercing other workmen to slow down the work;
(d) Refusal to accept the charge sheet, notices, suspension
orders, warning letters, show-cause notices, or any other
communications offered for service by the Company.
(e) Slowdown or enticing workmen to slow down any
performance of work; and
(f) Tampering with or sabotaging the Company's property.
6. The respondent-workman did not submit any
explanation to the said charge memo. The petitioner appointed
an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The respondent
did not participate in the enquiry. After considering the
-4-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
evidence, the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 12.07.2006,
held that the charges against the respondent are proved.
7. A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the
respondent along with a memo dated 16.08.2006, calling upon
the respondent to submit his reply, both on the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and on the proposed punishment of dismissal
from service. The notice sent along with the report is said to
have been returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'.
Thereafter, the petitioner-Company dismissed the respondent
vide order dated 16.11.2006.
8. The petitioner-Company contends that one more
dispute concerning the respondent, not connected to the
misconducts alleged, was pending consideration before the
Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru (Tribunal) in Reference
No.111/2004. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application
under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
("Act, 1947") seeking approval for the penalty of dismissal, and
one month's salary was also paid to the respondent as required
under Section 33(2)(b).
9. The Tribunal, by order dated 12.04.2013, allowed
the said application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947,
-5-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper, and
granted approval to the order of dismissal. The respondent has
not challenged the said order.
10. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 33-
A of the Act, 1947, alleging that the provisions of the Act, 1947
were not complied with. The Labour Court, vide order dated
05.05.2016, dismissed the said application seeking to
prosecute the petitioner.
11. The respondent challenged the order of dismissal
from employment by raising an industrial dispute. The
Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour
Court, whereupon the following points were framed for
consideration:
(a) Whether the workman is justified in raising a
dispute questioning the order of dismissal dated
16.11.2006, 10 years after the order?
(b) Whether the management is justified in dismissing
the workman from service vide order dated
16.11.2006?
12. The employer filed objections to the claim
statement and contended that the claim is hit by delay and
-6-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
laches and that the misconducts are duly established and the
penalty of dismissal is justified.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
following judgments:-
(a) Zenith Textiles vs Jagadeesh D R1
(b) Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs Management of
Usha Breco Ltd. and others2
(c) Mahindra and Mahindra ltd. Vs N.B Naravade and
others3
(d) Dharamraj Kumar Singh Vs Union of India and ors4
(e) Union of India Vs P. Gunasekaran5
14. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on
the following judgments:-
(a) Blue Star Employees' Union Vs Ex Off. Principal
Secy. to Govt. and another6
(b) John D' Souza vs Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation7
(c) Ajaib Singh Vs Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing-
cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another8
1
W.P 14223/2020, High Court of Karnataka
2
(2008) 5 SCC 554
3
(2005) 3 SCC 134
4
MANU/GH/0308/2007
5
(2015) 2 SCC 610
6
(2000) 8 SCC 94
7
(2019) 18 SCC 47
-7-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
(d) Jasmer Singh Vs State of Haryana and another9
(e) Mavji C. Lakum Vs Central Bank of India10
(f) Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Vs Harisingh11
15. The Court has considered the judgments cited and
has kept in mind the principles laid down.
16. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
17. The Labour Court has concluded that the finding on
the fairness of the enquiry has attained finality in view of the
earlier finding in the proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Act, 1947. The Court also held that the dispute raised is not hit
by delay and laches, as the workman was prosecuting the
proceedings under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947.
18. The respondent-workman did not participate in the
domestic enquiry and there is no rebuttal evidence against the
evidence led on behalf of the Establishment relating to the
misconduct. Hence, the charges are proved.
8
(1999) 6 SCC 82
9
(2015) 4 SCC 458
10
(2008) 12 SCC 726
11
Civil Appeal No. 4436/2010
-8-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
19. The Labour Court found that the charges proved did
not warrant a penalty of dismissal and, accordingly, modified
the penalty, directed reinstatement, and denied backwages
from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
However, the Labour Court directed continuity of service.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
employer would urge that the dispute is raised 10 years after
the order of dismissal, and no explanation is found to condone
the delay and laches. The workman, being a party to the
proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, did not
challenge the said order granting approval. Being aware that
the employer has obtained necessary approval under Section
33(2)(b) for the order of dismissal, the workman has filed a
complaint under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947, and in that
situation, the Court could not have condoned the delay of 10
years in raising the dispute.
21. In addition, it is also urged that the misconducts
proved are grave and warranted a penalty of dismissal, and the
petitioner-Establishment is justified in imposing the penalty of
dismissal, and the Labour Court could not have exercised
-9-
WP No. 13011 of 2020
jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act, 1947 to set aside the
penalty of dismissal.
22. It is noticed that the judgment in M/s. Zenith
Textiles (Supra), is pertaining to the misconduct of a
workman of the petitioner Company between 13.07.2005 to
14.11.2005. In the instant case, the conduct alleged against
the respondent is not connected to the misconduct alleged
against the respondent in W.P. No.14223/2020 [M/s.
Zenith Textiles (supra)]. Hence, the facts in the said case
are different from the facts in the present case.
23. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would urge that the Labour Court is justified in holding that the
dispute raised is not hit by delay and laches. The petitioner was
prosecuting the matter under Section 33-A of the Act, 1947
under an impression that the said prosecution also amounted to
a challenge to the order of dismissal, and only after dismissal of
the application under Section 33-A in 2016, and approval
granted under Section 33(2)(b) in 2013, the workman raised a
dispute under Section 10 of the Act, 1947 within a reasonable
time. As such, there is no delay on the part of the respondent-
workman.
- 10 -
WP No. 13011 of 2020
24. In addition, it is also urged that the charges, even if
held to be proved, are minor and did not warrant the penalty of
dismissal, more so in a situation where there is no allegation of
past misconduct against the respondent-workman.
25. The admitted factual position is that the
respondent-workman was issued with a show-cause notice
alleging certain misconducts between 03.02.2006 and
11.02.2006. The respondent-workman did not respond to the
charge memo. An enquiry was conducted into the charges
levelled against the respondent-workman. The workman did not
participate in the proceedings. Based on the evidence led
before him, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges are
proved.
26. To the second show-cause notice issued to the
respondent based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer's
report, the respondent-workman did not respond. Further, the
Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from service.
There was a pending dispute concerning the same respondent-
workman; as such, an application was filed under Section
33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 seeking approval of dismissal. The
said application was allowed in the year 2013, and in the said
- 11 -
WP No. 13011 of 2020
proceedings, the respondent-workman was a party. The
Government referred the dispute for adjudication in May 2016.
Hence, it is not a case to hold that the dispute is raised after 10
years. The proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) were pending
till 2013.
27. As already noticed, the finding on misconduct is
accepted by the respondent. Thus, the Court is also of the view
that the charges are established.
28. Now the question is, "whether the Labour Court is
justified in interfering with the penalty of dismissal from
service?"
29. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh (Supra), to
contend that the penalty should not be lightly be interfered in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act, 1947. It
is true that under Section 11A the Labour Court will not have
unbridled discretion to interfere with the penalty. Same is the
law laid down in Mahindra and Mahindra (Supra). At the
same time, it is also settled position of law that the Court can
look into the mitigating circumstances like nature of the job,
nature of the misconduct, the past conduct of the workman.
- 12 -
WP No. 13011 of 2020
30. The charges leveled against the respondent-
workman relate to inefficiency, slowdown, and insubordination
between 03.02.2006 and 11.02.2006. It is not the case of the
petitioner-Establishment that there were proven past
misconducts against the respondent. Taking into consideration
the nature of the charges proved against the respondent-
workman, the Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal is
disproportionate and, in exercise of the power under Section
11A of the Act, 1947, directed reinstatement of the respondent.
31. It is also relevant to notice that the Labour Court
has denied backwages and allowances from the date of
dismissal to the date of reinstatement, which is effectively
denial for 10 years. It is possible to contend that in those 10
years, the respondent did not work and, applying the principle
of 'no pay for no work', the denial of back wages is not a
punishment.
32. Though the said contention appears logical, it is also
required to be noticed that the Labour Court has concluded that
the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the proven
misconduct, and this Court also agrees with the said view,
given the fact that the charges proved certainly called for a
- 13 -
WP No. 13011 of 2020
lesser punishment, particularly in a situation where there is no
allegation of past misconduct. Hence, it is also possible to hold
that employment was denied from the date of dismissal, though
a lesser penalty ought to have been imposed. Had the
respondent been allowed to work, he would have earned wages
for the work discharged by him. Thus, the denial of back wages
for 10 years in a way also operates as a penalty.
33. Considering the material on record, the Court is of
the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
exercise of discretion by the Labour Court is within well-
established parameters.
34. However, the Labour Court has granted continuity
of service from the date of dismissal in the year 2006 till
reinstatement. The respondent was opposing the application
under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947, and in 2013, the
penalty of dismissal was approved. The respondent later filed
an application under Section 33-A to prosecute the petitioner
for alleged non-compliance with the requirements of Section
33(2)(b). However, it was rejected in 2016.
35. It is indeed true that the proceedings initiated to
prosecute the petitioner were wholly untenable, given the fact
- 14 -
WP No. 13011 of 2020
that the respondent was a party to the proceedings under
Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. Thus, the Court is of the
view that the cause of action to raise the dispute arose in the
year 2013 after the application for approval under Section
33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 was allowed by the Tribunal.
36. In such a situation, the Court is of the view that
there is delay on the part of the respondent in raising the
dispute from 2013 to 2016, and the respondent was
prosecuting a wholly untenable application under Section 33-A
of the Act, 1947.
37. The Court is of the view that continuity of service
from the date of grant of approval under Section 33(2)(b) till
the date of dismissal of the application under Section 33-A is to
be denied.
38. The remaining part of the award is confirmed.
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part
(ii) The Award dated 27.01.2020 in Ref.No.
15/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Mysuru is
modified.
- 15 -
(iii) Respondent is not entitled to benefit of
continuity of service from 12.04.2013 i.e. date
of order in S.A No.07/2006 till 05.05.2016 i.e.
the date of dismissal of Section 33-A
application.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN/CHS
