- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 17198 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., NO.62, 2ND FLOOR, HIGH STREET, 11TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU- 560011. NOW AT PRESENT ADDRESS: PRESTIGE TOWER, 4TH FLOOR, CORPORATION NO.99 AND 100, RESIDENCY ROAD, ADJACENT TO RITZ CARLTON, BENGALURU- 560025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: M NAVEEN KUMAR M, S/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.58, 1ST CROSS, AVALAHALLI, MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560026. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT RAJESHWARI M, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 25.07.2024 PASSED IN ID NO. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 15/2022 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT TUMAKURU PRODUCED AND MARKED HEREWITH AS ANNX- A.CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION IN ID NO.15/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AT TUMAKURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the order dated 25.07.2024 in I.D. No.15/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tumakuru. In terms of the said award, the penalty of dismissal passed by the petitioner is set aside and reference under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act of 1947') is allowed. The employer was directed to reinstate the employee with continuity of service and 50% back wages and other monetary benefits. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the notice in I.D No.15/2022 is duly served on the petitioner, due to inadvertence, the notice was misplaced and for this reason, the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court to contest the matter. To substantiate the contention that the petitioner has materials to defend the proceeding in I.D. No.15/2022, it is urged before the Conciliation Officer that the petitioner participated and produced several documents in support of its claim, justifying the dismissal of service. It is further submitted that, in case the opportunity is not granted to the petitioner, the valid defence available to the petitioner cannot be put forth and petitioner will be put to substantial hardship and has to reinstate an employee who according to the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the petitioner was duly served with the notice. The petitioner though had participated in the conciliation proceeding before the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 officer has not chosen to appear before the Labour Court. It is further submitted that on account of the gross negligence on the part of the petitioner, the respondent/ employee cannot be made to suffer. No material is placed to urge that the charges are proved. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge to dismiss the petition. 4. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 5. It is an admitted fact that before the Conciliation Officer, the petitioner participated and produced the records to justify the order of dismissal. However, the conciliation attempt failed and when the dispute was raised before the Labour Court and notice was sent and same is duly served on the petitioner. 6. The petitioner submits that on account of inadvertence, the notice was misplaced and thereafter the petitioner could not appear before the Labour Court. Though, it is from that on account of the negligence on the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 part of the petitioner, the respondent cannot be penalized, what is also required to be considered at the same time is that in case petitioner has materials to substantiate its contention justifying the dismissal of service on account of alleged misconduct, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to defend the order of dismissal. 7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the balance can be struck by imposing cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner payable to the respondent and the proceeding can commence afresh with a direction to the petitioner to cooperate in the early disposal and not to seek unnecessary adjournment causing inconvenience to the respondent/employee. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned award dated 25.07.2024 in I.D. No.15/2022 on the file of Principal District Judge and Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tumakuru is set-aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21761 WP No. 17198 of 2025 (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication. (iv) The parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 07.07.2025 without fail on that day. (v) The second party before the Labour Court shall file statement of objection and he shall pay cost of Rs.20,000/- as condition precedent to file statement of objection. (vi) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. (vii) The petitioner before this Court, second party before the Labour Court shall cooperate for early disposal of the petition. (viii) All contentions kept open. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30