- 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, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O LATE A DHANARAJ, RESIDING AT NO.6, MARIA VILLA, 7TH B CROSS, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, (ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT), BANASWADI, BENGALURU -560043. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, SECRETARIAT, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 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 £ÀªÀÄä «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ C£ÀéAiÀĪÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀAdAiÀiï ºÀAqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ 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 £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥É¤UÉ gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛÃ£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 £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸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