- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 1745 OF 2021 (L-RES) BETWEEN: VEERABASAPPA S S, S/O SHIVAPPA S.S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 603, 15TH CROSS, M.E.I.LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BAGNALORE-560073. …PETITIONER (BY SMT AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF MAPAL INDIA PVT LTD., HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.307, 308, 5TH MAIN, IV PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560058. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B R PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD ISSUED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT DATED 23.08.2019 IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.61/2013 TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT IT DENIES THE REINSTATEMENT AND BACKWAGES TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECT THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED TO FULL BACKWAGES, INCREMENTS, BONUS AND OTHER BENEFITS WITH REINSTATEMENT TO HIS ORIGINAL POST. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.08.2019 passed in I.D.No.61/2013 on the file of the Presiding Officer, First Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. 2. In terms of the impugned award, the Labour Court has set-aside the petitioner's order of termination which is passed by the respondent/management of this petition. The Labour Court has also noticed that the establishment is closed by the time it passed the award and thereafter, it directed payment of compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement. 3. The workman being aggrieved by the said order is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the respondent/management has accepted the award of compensation instead of reinstatement. Learned counsel on instructions would submit that the establishment is closed and as such, she does not insist for reinstatement. However, it is her contention that similarly placed employees were paid much higher compensation in the year 2013, as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 such, compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs awarded by the Labour Court is inadequate. It is also her contention that the Labour Court has not awarded interest on the compensation awarded and more than 12 years have elapsed since the date of the award, as such, the compensation has to be enhanced and suitable interest has to be awarded on the said compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/management on the other hand would contend that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation. However, given the fact that other employees were given closure compensation in the year 2013, the respondent/management has not chosen to question the award passed by the Labour Court. It is also her further contention that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the compensation awarded by the Labour Court and Labour Court is not justified in not granting the interest. 6. This Court has posed a specific query to the respondent/management as to how much compensation is paid to the similarly placed employees and directed the respondent/management to furnish as to how much compensation, the petitioner is entitled to. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/management has filed a memo stating that the petitioner is entitled to amount of Rs.2,97,572/- by taking into account, the salary and other allowances payable to the petitioner. If this is the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner way back in the year 2013, the petitioner is also entitled to reasonable interest on the said amount. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/management at this juncture would submit that Rs.2,97,572/- was offered to the petitioner in the year 2013, however, the petitioner refused to accept the same, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to interest. 9. Though learned counsel for the respondent/management would contend that in paragraph No.24 of the said impugned award, reference is also made to the offer made by the respondent/management to pay the compensation amount, this Court, after going through the said paragraph No.24 is of the view that there is no such finding recorded by the Labour Court to say that the amount is offered by the respondent/management. No material is placed on - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 record to show that the amount was offered by the respondent/management. 10. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instructions would submit that once the award is passed in the year 2019, only Rs.2.00 lakhs was offered and Rs.2,97,572/- was not offered. 11. There are no materials at this juncture to ascertain as to how much was the amount that was offered in the year 2019. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.2,97,572/- from the date of closure of the establishment in the year 2013. Since, the amount is retained by the respondent/management since 2013, the respondent/management shall pay interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of closure till the date of the award as the respondent/management claims to have made the offer to make payment. 12. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6146 WP No. 1745 of 2021 (ii) The respondent/management shall pay an amount of Rs.2,97,572/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of closure till the date of award i.e. 23.08.2019. (iii) In case, the amount is not paid within one month from today, the petitioner is entitled to interest on Rs.2,97,572/- @ 8% p.a. from this date till payment. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19