- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10924 OF 2025 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 33473 OF 2024 (L-RES) IN WP No. 10924/2025 BETWEEN: SRI BALAKRISHNA N, S/O LATE NONU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT C/O THE BANGALORE KARMIKA SANGHA, ADARSHA NILAYA, NO.8, RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 058. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V S.,ADVOCATE) AND: M/S PRASHANTHI POLYMERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.A-41, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.M. MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT SETTING ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 25.06.2024 CERTIFIED COPY ANNX-C PASSED BY THE ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN REF NO. 51/2018 TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER IS AGGRIEVED; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER IN HIS ORIGINAL POST WITH ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES. IN WP NO. 33473/2024 BETWEEN: M/S PRASHANTHI POLYMERS (INADIA) PRIVATE LIMITED NO.A-41, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER-OPERATIONS, SRI RAJESH PUTHRAN. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.M. MURALIDHAR., ADVOCATE) AND: BANGALORE WORKERS UNION ADARSHA NILAYA, NO.8, RAJAGOPALANAGARA MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 25.06.2024 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICE, FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IN REF.NO. 51/2018 VIDE ANNX- A. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed both by an Employer and the concerned Employee calling in question the award dated 25.06.2024 in Reference No.51/2018 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the labour Court']. The labour Court has partly allowed the reference under Section 10(1)(c)/(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the Act'] setting aside the Employer's order dated 18.02.2017 with cost of Rs.1,000/- while directing the Employer, instead of the prayer made in the claim statement, to pay to the Employee a sum of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation within 60 days from the publication of the award. 2. The Employer [the petitioner in WP No.33473/2024] is aggrieved by the decision to set aside the dismissal order and to pay compensation, and the Employer [the petitioner in WP No.10924/2025] is aggrieved by the decision to only award compensation in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of granting other relief. However, this Court must record at the very outset that the Employer is a MSME and the Employee is on the verge of completing 58 years, and that if the Employer contends that the Employee has voluntarily ceased to work, the Employee contends that there is a refusal of work. 3. One circumstance relied upon by the Employer is the admitted fact that the Employee, who suffered an accident while working, has availed medical treatment under the ESI, a benefit extended - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 to his wife - also an Employee but with another establishment. The Employee has relied upon a Certificate issued to the Employer on 01.03.2017 to refute the assertion that he has voluntarily stayed away from work. The labour Court has directed the Employee to appear before the Medical Board for examination in the course of hearing, and the Medical Board with Victoria Hospital Bangalore has submitted its report opining that the Employee has implants in situ for fracture in his right forearm and because of his other health conditions he may be assigned light work. 4. It is in the light of these circumstances, and the fact that the Employee was working as an Electrician/Maintenance Mechanic, the labour Court has found it fit to grant compensation instead of the claim made. The labour Court's reasoning to award Rs.5,00,000/- instead of the claim is as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 Now the only point for consideration when the dismissal order is held to be unjustified is to see whether the first party is entitled to reinstatement with backwages and consequential benefits. The second party, considering the defence which they have taken and also considering the domestic enquiry they have initiated against the first party, did not have interest in reinstating the first party. They have categorically stated that the first party was in the habit of remaining absent without taking permission and the same has resulted in hardship and has affected the work in the department. Hence, by invoking Section 11-A of the ID Act in lieu of the prayers which the first party has claimed in the claim statement, it is proper for the court to award compensation to the first party. The first party has rendered almost 22 years of service. Hence if a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Five lakhs) is awarded to the first party, the same would be quite reasonable and appropriate and also considering that only a year or two of his service is left, it will also not cause financial hardship to the second party. Therefore under the facts and circumstances of the dispute, instead of awarding the reliefs claimed, a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs only) if orderd to be paid by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 second party to the first party within 60 days from the date of publication of the award, would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the Reference Point No.1 is answered as 'Negative'. This Court, on a careful consideration of all the circumstances, is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the labour Court in awarding compensation, and has accordingly heard Sri H.M. Muralidhar, the learned counsel for the Employer, and Sri V. S. Naik, the learned counsel for the Employee. 5. Sri H. M. Muralidhar canvases that the Employer is a MSME and notwithstanding its defences will tender any amount between Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from today to achieve quietus. Sri V.S. Naik submits that any amount less than Rs.5,00,000/- would visit the Employee with hardship as he has rendered 22 years of continuous service and could - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 not report to duty because of the injuries suffered in an accident for which entailed treatment. The learned counsel also submits that it was only under certain circumstances [which is not elaborately stated by this Court] that the Employee had to agree to tender resignation and come back to duty again after a short-break and this is the reason for the present controversy. 6. This Court must observe that these rival submissions on the discretion exercised by the labour Court in awarding Rs.5,00,000/- reduces the scope for consideration. If the Employer, a MSME, is willing to pay an amount within two weeks is relevant, so is the admitted fact that the Employee has worked for 22 years and has fought a litigation resulting with the award for a period of seven years. This Court must observe that the compensation, which is only an estimate of what could be true compensation, must be paid quickly without further protraction and when - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 the rival stand is so considered, this Court must opine that the petitions must be disposed of directing the Employer [the petitioner in WP No.33743/2024] to pay a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- but observing that if there is any delay to pay this amount, there must be a liability to pay a higher rate of interest lest be that the Employer has taken an advantage to the Employee’s cost. In the light of afore, the following order: ORDER The petitions stand disposed of modifying the labour Court's award dated 25.06.2024 thus: [A] The Employer [the petitioner in WP No.33473/2024] shall pay Rs.4,75,000/- within two weeks from today without waiting for a certified copy of this order. [B] The Employee [the petitioner in W.P.No.10924/2025] shall also, without waiting for a certified copy of this order, furnish his - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17918 WP No. 10924 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33473 of 2024 bank details to facilitate the transfer of this amount. [C] If there is any delay in transferring the amount in due compliance, the Employer shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Sd/ (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr