- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.27834 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI. A. DHANANJAYA, S/O SRI. ANKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS A TECHNICIAN IN TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED, (NOW ILLEGALLY DISMISSED FORM SERVICE) RESIDING AT NO.23, MARUTHI LAYOUT, NEAR ATHIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K.B., ADVOCATE) AND: MS/ TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BIDADI RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT - 562 109. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.N. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 21.01.2014 MADE IN I.D.09/2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-'AA' AS THE SAID AWARD SUFFERS FROM ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is unsuccessful in his reference with the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The Labour Court has dismissed his application under Section 10[4A] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] in ID No.9 of 2012. The petitioner is served with Articles of Charge because of the allegation that he had physically assaulted a co-worker on the floor shop leading to the Inquiry Report finding substance - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 in such charge and the subsequent dismissal order dated 10.11.2011. 2. The Labour Court, which found that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper, has permitted parties to lead evidence. The petitioner has examined himself as WW.1 and an officer with the respondent is examined as MW1. The respondent has produced all the documents relating to the inquiry including the evidence of the Production Manager, Sri M.K.Swamy. This witness has asserted that he has witnessed the altercation between the petitioner and the co-worker. The Labour Court, on examination of the records, has opined that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Co-worker and the Production Manager that the petitioner was the aggressor and he assaulted the workman using abusive language. 3. The Labour Court has also referred to the evidence that the petitioner and the Co-worker were - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 the concerned Union’s Office Bearers with the petitioner being a former Office Bearer and that there was good relationship between them except for some difference in opinion over some specific issue. Further, this Court must observe that the evidence does not show that the petitioner has caused the Co- worker any grievous hurt caused. 4. This Court must opine that the Labour Court, while rejecting the Application should have considered these circumstances as well and should have moulded the relief under Section 11A of the ID Act. With this opinion, this Court has heard Sri K. B. Narayana Swamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, on the compensation that could be paid by the respondent to the petitioner to bring about a quietus. 5. Sri K. B. Narayana Swamy submits that this Court must grant such compensation as would - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 be reasonable taking note of the fact that the petitioner has two sons, one of whom is in 10th Standard and the other in 3rd Standard and that the petitioner who witnessed the present incident could have continued in the employment earning substantially but today he is denied that liberty on the allegation that he has assaulted a co-worker. 6. Sri S. N. Murthy, the learned Senior Counsel, while contending that the dismissal is justified as peace on the floor is important leading to escalated disturbance, submits that if there is a ready acceptance of any liability to pay any compensation, it will be cited as a precedent to the respondent's detriment and prejudice. These submissions are considered, and this Court is of the view that the petitioner must receive some compensation because he has lost his job on the allegation of having assaulted a Co-worker and an Office bearer because of certain difference of opinion - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 on certain Union’s issue and that this would be necessary to ensure that his children's education is not prejudiced. 7. When these rather peculiar circumstances are considered in the backdrop of the petitioner’s station in life with two minor sons, this Court is of the considered view that it would be just and reasonable to call upon the respondent to pay a total sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioner and an additional sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cost of litigation but on terms. As this amount is determined, considering the petitioner's present station and his keenness to educate his two sons, this amount must be deposited in the name of his two children for the period until they attain the age of 18 years. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is disposed of by modifying the Labour Court's impugned award holding that the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 respondent shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the petitioner in the following manner: [i] A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner's eldest son for a term that coincides with he completing 18 years and with liberty to draw the sum only on completion of such term with interest. [ii] A sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of the petitioner's second son for a term that would coincide with he completing 18 years and with liberty to receive that amount and the accrued interest only on the completion of 18 years. [iii] The petitioner shall, along with a certified copy of this order, apply with the respondent furnishing all the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15843 WP No. 27834 of 2014 details of his sons, to ensure that the amount is deposited in their names. [iv] The respondent is called upon to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner immediately. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27