[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Bosch Ltd vs Mr. D. Charles on 16 February, 2026
-1-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 3962 OF 2024 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S BOSCH LTD.,
ADUGODI, P.B. NO 3000,
HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560030,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER,
MR GOPALAKRISHNA JOSHI (57 YEARS),
REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K KASTURI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR J.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. D. CHARLES,
Digitally AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
signed by
PRAMILA G V S/O LATE A DHANARAJ,
Location: RESIDING AT NO.6,
HIGH COURT MARIA VILLA, 7TH B CROSS,
OF EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY,
KARNATAKA
(ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT),
BANASWADI,
BENGALURU -560043.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
SECRETARIAT,
-2-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED VIDE ORDER
DATED 19.04.2024)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI M RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL
FOR RECORDS OF THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT IN REF.
NO. 24/2015 AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED
23/09/2023 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AT
ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT. ii) TO QUASH THE ORDER OF
REFERENCE IN REF. NO. 24/2015.iii) TO AWARD COST OF
THESE PROCEEDINGS.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02ND FEBRUARY 2026 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
CAV ORDER
The petitioner - Establishment is before this Court
assailing the award dated 23.09.2023 in Reference No.24/2015
on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru.
2. In terms of the award, the claim under Section
10(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947')
is allowed in part. The Labour Court declared that the
Management has taken resignation from the respondent-
employee by force and the order relieving the respondent from
service is set aside. Since the employee has attained the age of
superannuation, reinstatement is not ordered.
3. The petitioner - Establishment is directed to pay full
backwages from 30.08.2013 till the date of attaining the age of
superannuation after deducting Rs.11,04,192/- paid to the
employee on his resignation.
4. The impugned Order is assailed on two grounds:
(a) The respondent - employee was not a workman
when he tendered resignation, as such, he could
not have raised an industrial dispute.
(b) Assuming that he was a workman, still the Labour
Court could have held that resignation is not
-4-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
voluntary. The respondent - employee did not
establish that resignation is taken forcibly.
5. The petitioner's claim is as under:
Respondent joined the service under the petitioner as a
workman on April,1988. The respondent was promoted to the
position of an officer on 26.04.2004 and since then was
working in managerial and supervisory capacity. On
25.06.2013, respondent voluntarily tendered resignation which
is to take effect from 31.08.2023, and on 30.08.2013,
respondent signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the petitioner - Establishment and received Rs.12,26,880/-
towards full satisfaction of his claim.
6. The respondent-employee contended that
resignation is not voluntary and he was forced to resign by
petitioner - Establishment.
7. On 02.07.2014, the respondent raised the dispute.
On 07.05.2015, the appropriate Government referred the
dispute for adjudication. Both the parties led evidence in
support of their contentions and the Labour Court held that the
respondent is a workman and also held that resignation is not
voluntary.
-5-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
8. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
taking through the averments urged as under:
8.1 Respondent-employee cannot be termed as a
workman. Though he joined services as an
Operator, later he was promoted and became a
certified trainer to conduct simulation workshop and
he was a faculty member in the vocational centre.
8.2 Respondent had completed Post Graduate Diploma
in Personnel Management and Industrial Relations
in the year 2006 and of Master of Business
Administration in the year 2008 and he also
completed Post Graduate Diploma in Personnel
Management Marketing in the year 2009 and
Corporate Post Graduate Diploma in Business
Administration from Symbiosis Centre in the year
2010 and Post Graduate Diploma in Financial
Management in the year 2010. Considering the job
profile of respondent it cannot be held that the
respondent was a workman.
8.3 Because of his qualification, respondent - employee
was promoted to Managerial and Superintending
-6-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
Staff Category (M&SS) and he accepted the service
conditions. The Company went for restructuring and
wanted to downsize its work force and offered to
terminate the services of respondent - employee by
paying compensation and the respondent voluntarily
accepted the offer and submitted the resignation
letter on 25.06.2013. Later, on 30.08.2023, the
respondent entered into Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the petitioner-
Establishment and received agreed compensation of
Rs.12,26,880/- and thereafter, raised untenable
industrial dispute on the premise that his
resignation is forcibly extracted.
8.4 From 25.06.2013, till the dispute is raised pursuant
to an application dated 02.07.2014, before the
Conciliation Officer, the petitioner never stated that
his resignation was forcibly extracted.
8.5 The contention that the resignation is forcibly
extracted is untenable and not supported by the
evidence before the Labour Court and the impugned
-7-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
award setting aside the resignation is wholly
unacceptable and is based on no evidence.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
employee would urge that the Labour Court is justified in
holding that the respondent is a workman.
10. The kind of job extracted from the respondent
would unmistakably point to the fact that the respondent was a
workman
10.1 Respondent was forced to tender his resignation as
the petitioner held out a threat that, in case,
respondent does not resign, he will be removed on
the grounds of inefficiency and not meeting the
employer's requirement.
10.2 The very next date after the alleged resignation
letter where respondent was forced to sign, the
respondent addressed a letter complaining about
forcibly extracting the resignation letter, and
decision of the Management proposing to terminate
the services of the respondent.
-8-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
10.3 In the statement of objection the petitioner -
Management has raised several contentions on the
respondent's performance, efficiency, skill and
ability which are stigmatic and same amounts to
stigmatic termination without enquiry.
10.4 Labour Court is justified in setting aside the order
relieving the respondent and also justified in
directing payment of full backwages as the
respondent is removed from employment without
any enquiry or justification.
11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and perused the records.
12. The dispute centers around the alleged resignation
letter. Relevant portion of the resignation letter dated
25.06.2013 reads as under:
"Due to my personal reasons, I am
tendering resignation from my job. I
request you to kindly waive the notice
period and relieve me from the services
on 31.08.2013.
I further request you that I may be
considered for an ex-gratia in view of my
-9-
WP No. 3962 of 2024
length of service apart from the regular
dues payable in my full & final
settlement. I agree that the ex-gratia will
be as per your discretion and I agree to
abide by the same and shall not contest
the same in any manner.
I thank you for the opportunity given to
me to serve the Company."
13. From the said resignation letter, the first inference
that one would get is, due to personal reasons, the respondent-
employee is tendering resignation with effect from 31.08.2013.
In the said letter, there is also a request to pay ex-gratia, in
addition to the regular dues payable, considering the
respondent's length of service.
14. Learned counsel the respondent-employee referring
to the said resignation letter urged that it is a proforma
resignation letter issued by the petitioner - Management to all
the employees whose services were terminated on the pretext
of alleged restructuring of the Company.
15. Learned counsel also referred to the communication
dated 26.06.2013 addressed to the petitioner - Establishment
to urge that the respondent had protested on the very next day
after alleged resignation.
- 10 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
16. In the said letter respondent has stated that the
communication asking for resignation has come abruptly on
24.06.2013, and the last date for submission of resignation was
26.06.2013 and the relieving date was 31.08.2013. The said
letter also states that the respondent will receive
Rs.12,50,000/- with deduction of income tax in addition to
other payments like provident fund, gratuity, superannuation
benefits, leave encashment etc as per the policy of the
Company and respondent lost opportunity of Early Voluntary
Retirement (EVR) Scheme, which was offered to some of the
other employees, and respondent states that he would have
received compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- without income tax
deductions under the said scheme.
17. It is also noticed from the communication dated
26.06.2013 that citing some domestic reasons, the respondent
has requested to review the decision and enhance the
compensation and to pay the same on par with the employees
who were paid compensation under the EVR Scheme. In the
said letter, respondent-employee has also highlighted the
contributions he has made to the Company and also referred to
his educational qualifications, skills, knowledge and ability etc.
- 11 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
While concluding the respondent - employee has stated as
under:
"Requesting you to consider the enhanced financial
benefits, rotation of job, etc as positive HR Bosch Policy.
Thanking Bosch Ltd., Dept, Head top mgt., colleagues,
HRL teams, all the range heads, zonal leaders,
FLMS/M&SS/associates, coordinators, well-wisher and all
concerned for the support and cooperation extended to
me."
18. The letter dated 26.06.2013, referred to above is
computer typed, thereafter, few words have been inserted,
probably in the hand writing of the respondent himself which
read as under:
"Free and fair enquiry to be conducted to know the root
causes of the problems.
Please do justice to me before accepting my resignation
made at your request.
The contents of this resignation has been linked to the
Resignation format given by Bosch/HRL where reasons &
compensation, etc are not explained."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Learned counsel for the respondent-employee
referring to the hand written insertions in the said letter would
submit that what is written in handwriting would speak about
- 12 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
the respondent's anguish and the disadvantageous situation in
which the resignation was extracted.
20. As can be gathered from the said communication
dated 26.06.2013, respondent has sought higher compensation
of Rs.15,00,000/- without income tax deduction. Said letter
also speaks about the other financial loss. It is noticed that the
communication dated 26.06.2013 does not speak about any
force or coercion on the respondent - workman.
21. This communication dated 26.06.2013 does not
indicate that the respondent was asked to resign and in case if
he does not, he will be terminated with adverse remarks,
though such contention appears to have been raised in the
claim statement. However, claim statement is filed 18 months
after resignation.
22. More importantly, it is to be noticed that on
30.08.2013, the petitioner and the respondent entered into
MOU and the execution of the said document is not in dispute.
As can be seen from the said MOU, reference is made to the
resignation letter dated 25.06.2013 and acting on the said
resignation letter, the Management has relieved the respondent
from the services. Management has also agreed to waive the
- 13 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
notice period and Management has paid Rs.12,26,880/- to the
respondent apart from the other dues like provident fund,
gratuity and other superannuation benefits subject to rider that
payment will be applicable income tax deduction at source.
23. The respondent has accepted the amount towards
full and final settlement of his claim against the Company for
discontinuing the services as voluntarily agreed by the
respondent-employee.
24. Clause-4 of the MOU also stipulates that the
respondent-employee shall not raise any dispute or make any
claim against the Company. Though the Court is of the view
that Clause-4 does not take away the right of the respondent-
employee to raise a dispute if grounds are made out. What is
required to be noticed is, from the date of resignation dated
25.06.2013 till 30.08.2013, the respondent-employee had the
opportunity to withdraw the resignation in case it was extracted
by force or coercion as alleged. The respondent has not chosen
to do so. Respondent continued to work with the Company till
30.08.2013 and there is nothing on record to take a view that
before signing MOU dated 30.08.2013, he complained to
anyone alleging that he is a victim of force or coercion by the
- 14 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
petitioner-Company. It is noticed that while respondent raised
dispute on 2nd of July 2014, he contented that resignation was
not voluntary and it was forcible.
25. The Court does not find acceptable material to hold
that respondent-employee has tendered resignation because of
force or coercion. Respondent-employee has collected
Rs.12,26,880/- from the petitioner and thereafter, has raised a
dispute. It is also relevant to notice that the respondent -
employee is not only the person who has resigned and there
are several employees who have resigned post the
restructuring scheme of the Company, and this fact is not in
dispute.
26. The Court has also perused the award passed by
the Labour Court. The Labour Court has concluded that the
respondent is a workman and rejected the petitioner's
contention that the respondent is not a workman on the
premise that no staff are working under the respondent-
employee. The Labour Court has also held that the respondent
had no signing authority, as such, he was not doing managerial
or supervisory work.
- 15 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
27. Insofar as the plea relating to the forcible
resignation, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that
the resignation is taken forcibly and resignation letter dated
25.06.2013 is not voluntary.
28. It is noticed from the impugned award that the
Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent-
employee has not voluntarily resigned by referring to the
evidence and suggestions in the cross-examination which are
extracted as under:
"E«Dgï ¹ÌêÀiï £ÀªÄÀ ä «¨sÁUÀPÌÉ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj
¸ÀAdAiÀiï ºÀAqÉAiÀĪÀgÄÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä «¨sÁUÀPÌÉ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
E«Dgï ¹ÌêÀiï JA CAqï J¸ï J¸ï PÉlUÉÃj C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ
£ÀªÀÄä «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¸ÁPÀëöå £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ." MW1 in his
cross examination has deposed that "£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ
PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¸Àé EZÉѬÄAzÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä PÀA¥É¤UÉ gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆnÖgÄÀ vÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. N ¦ JA ¹ÌêÀiï §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. 2012 £Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ E«Dgï
¹ÌêÀiï §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦®è. ¤±Á£É qÀ§Æèöå6 gÀ°è N ¦ JA ¹ÌêÀiï ºÁUÀÆ
E « Dgï ¹ÌêÀiï §UÉÎ £ÀªÄÀ Æ¢¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
29. In addition to that, the Labour Court has also
interpreted Ex.W6 and Ex.W1 to hold that the resignation letter
is not voluntary. The Labour Court has also referred to Ex.W9
the reply letter issued by Management to the resignation letter
at Ex.W1 and the letter dated 28.06.2013 at Ex.W2.
- 16 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
30. The Court has considered Ex.W6 which is reply
dated 02.06.2014. In the said letter, the Company has
indicated that the petitioner is not performing to the
expectations and has not improved in spite of sufficient
opportunities given to him. The Company has also informed
that the petitioner's request for higher compensation cannot be
considered and he is not eligible for EVR scheme as the
respondent-employee falls under the scheme for "Organization
Performance Management".
31. Ex.W9 is the email communication addressed to
the respondent which also refers to the communication dated
26.06.2013 and subsequent emails dated 28.06.2013,
23.09.2013 and 14.05.2014. In the said letter also reference is
made to the alleged under performance by the respondent-
employee and failure on the part of the respondent-employee
to live upto the expectations despite several opportunities.
32. The Labour Court has held that these
communications addressed by the petitioner - Management
highlighting the alleged under performance by the respondent-
employee would support the contention of the respondent that
- 17 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
the respondent was forced to resign and the resignation is not
voluntary.
33. The documents referred to above namely the
communications by the petitioner - Management wherein the
Management has pointed out about the alleged under
performance by the respondent-employee would no doubt
indicate that the petitioner-Management was not keen on
continuing with the services of the respondent-employee.
However, that by itself cannot be a ground to conclude that the
respondent was forced to resign.
34. Admittedly, the respondent is not the only person
who has been asked to resign in the process, there are several
other employees who have resigned in the restructuring
process undertaken by the petitioner-Establishment (this is not
part of the evidence on record, and it is submitted during the
course of submission before the Court and same is not
disputed)
35. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the
respondent - employee might have been asked to resign and
the respondent had an opportunity not to resign, however he
has not chosen to do so. Respondent has tendered the
- 18 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
resignation on 25.06.2013 mentioning the last working day as
31.08.2013.
36. In the aforementioned period from 25.06.2013 to
30.08.2013, the respondent had the opportunity to withdraw
the resignation, if at all it was extracted by force or in hostile
environment. That is not done. In addition to that, on
30.08.2013 respondent signed MOU with the petitioner and
accepted severance package and later he raises an industrial
dispute.
37. In a case of this nature, where the resignation letter
is tendered and compensation is received as agreed in terms of
the contract of severance, if the employee is to raise a
contention that the resignation is on account of force and
coercion, or any kind of compulsion and is not voluntary, the
burden is on the employee to establish the plea. The question is
whether the burden is discharged.
38. As already noticed, the Labour Court has
interpreted Ex.W6, Ex.W9 and few sentences in the cross-
examination referred to above to hold that the resignation is
not voluntary. This Court is of the view that the said finding is
wholly untenable and complete misreading of the evidence and
- 19 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
in the process the Labour Court overlooked the resignation
letter and MOU.
39. The contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent-employee that the allegations relating to alleged
under performance on the part of the respondent made in the
communication addressed by the petitioner to the respondent
amounts to stigmatic termination and said termination without
holding enquiry is impermissible cannot be accepted.
40. It is to be noticed that no penalty is imposed on the
respondent-employee. May be the alleged under performance is
one of the reasons in the restructuring process and in case
respondent had disagreement on assessment of his
performance, the respondent should have protested and should
have refused to resign. However, the respondent appears to
have accepted the offer made by the petitioner and has
tendered resignation in writing and entered into an MOU two
months later in the writing and accepted the compensation.
41. This being the position, the finding of the Labour
Court that Ex.W6 and Ex.W9 would demonstrate that the
resignation is not voluntary cannot be said to be a valid finding
in law and said finding is based on no evidence in which event
- 20 -
WP No. 3962 of 2024
the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of
Constitution of India to set aside the award.
42. Since the Court has come to the conclusion that the
resignation is voluntary and not extracted on account of alleged
force or coercion or for that matter any kind of unfair labour
practice, the Court need not dwell in to the question as to
whether the respondent is a workman or not.
43. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned award dated 23.09.2023 on the
file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru
Reference No.24/2015 is set aside.
(iii) The claim in Reference No.24/2015 on the file
of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is
rejected.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
