- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 55124 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI.K.V.SIDARAJU, S/O SRI VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, TEAM MEMBER NO.0584, RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGAR, WATER SUPPLY ROAD, KANAKAPURA-562 117, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.1, BIDADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, BIDADI-562109, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS. QUASH THAT PORTION OF THE AWARD DTD.18.1.2014 MADE IN I.D.NO.8/12 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER III ADDL. LABOUR COURT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEX-K BY WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN DENIED FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, EXCEPT FOR Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 RETIREMENT BENEFITS AND WITHHOLDING OF TWO INCREMENTS AS THAT PORTION OF THE AWARD SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 award dated 18.01.2014 in I.D. No.8/2012 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Labour Court'). In terms of the said award, the Labour Court has modified the penalty of dismissal from service and directed the petitioner's reinstatement, however, backwages were denied. The Labour Court also directed withholding two increments with cumulative effect. 2. The respondent-Management has accepted the award. The petitioner-workmen is aggrieved by the award denying backwages and withholding two increments with cumulative effect. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Management. 4. The respondent-Management initiated two disciplinary inquiry against two employees, one among them is the petitioner and another person is Gyanesh Sama. It is stated that there was altercation between these two employees and Gyanesh Sama lodged a complaint against the petitioner and petitioner later lodged a counter complaint against Gyanesh Sama. Same Inquiry Officer conducted two different inquiries and the Inquiry Officer found charges against the petitioner proved and consequently, the Management imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges of assault against Gyanesh Sama was not proved. However, on other charge that he was not on duty on a particular day was held to be proved and he was suspended from service for 15 days. Gyanesh Sama has accepted the said penalty and has not questioned the same. The petitioner has not questioned the verdict of holding - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 Gyanesh Sama as not guilty of charges of assault against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Management has not conducted the inquiry properly. The witnesses who have seen the incident of Gyanesh Sama assaulting the petitioner have not been cited as a witness whereas the petitioner's evidence and the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the petitioner that Gyanesh Sama has assaulted the petitioner and petitioner has not assaulted Gyanesh Sama have not been considered. 6. In the alternative, it is also submitted that the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Thus, it is urged that the impugned award is to be set-aside and the petitioner is to be reinstated with full backwages. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the petitioner is dismissed from service for proven misconduct where he has assaulted the co- employee in the premises of the respondent. Charges are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 grave and considering the fact that misconduct alleged against the petitioner is established, penalty of dismissal was imposed by the Management which is certainly proportionate to the misconduct proved. The Labour Court took a lenient view and set-aside the penalty of dismissal from service and directed reinstatement by withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Management questioned the said award in Writ Petition No.17017/2014. Referring to the judgment dated 28.04.2014 in Writ Petition No.17017/2014, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that while dismissing the said petition filed by the Management, this Court has held that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and as such, he would submit that the present Writ Petition also is required to be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 9. It is noticed from the award passed by the Labour Court that the Labour Court has referred to the evidence led before the Disciplinary Authority and after referring to the evidence, the Labour Court has concluded that charges against - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 the petitioner are proved. However, the Labour Court has also noticed that the penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the petitioner and took a lenient view by awarding reinstatement into service without backwages. 10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that backwages should have been awarded to the petitioner, it is to be noticed that the petitioner was not in service on account of proven misconduct. That being the position, principle of 'no work and no pay' would certainly apply and the Labour Court is justified in denying backwages. 11. As far as the contention of the learned Senior counsel that in the writ petition filed by the Management, this Court has taken a view that there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, this Court has to hold that the said view upholding the award is to be understood in the context of the contentions raised by the management in the said case where the management sought for dismissal of service of the employee. Rejection of the petition filed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 respondent-Management cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner in the threshold. 12. Asfaras the alternative contention relating to lenient view to be taken by this Court, learned Senior counsel for the respondent would urge that the assault itself is a serious misconduct which attracts penalty of dismissal from service and the Labour Court has already taken a lenient view in favour of the petitioner by ordering reinstatement and withholding two increments with cumulative effect, there is no further scope to take lenient view. It is further stated that the petitioner was dismissed from service from 16.10.2020 on account of another misconduct after reinstatement. It is noticed that award for reinstatement is passed in the year 2014. As already noticed, since the case is arising out of a complaint and a counter complaint in respect of the altercation said to have taken place in the premises of the respondent. Materials on record do not indicate any pre-determined intention to assault a co- employee. It appears that incident occurred in a spur of a moment preceded by verbal abuse. This Court is of the view that instead of penalty of withdrawing of two increments with - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22062 WP No. 55124 of 2014 cumulative effect, penalty is modified and same is substituted by penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and another increment for three years without cumulative effect. 13. Hence the following: ORDER (a) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. (b) The impugned award dated 18.01.2014 in I.D.No.8/2012 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is modified. (c) One increment of the petitioner is ordered to be withheld with cumulative effect. Another increment for three years is ordered to be withheld without cumulative effect. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72