IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.15852 OF 2012 (L-TER) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.47731 OF 2012 (L-TER) IN WP NO.15852/2012: BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF KAR MOBILES LTD., PLOT NO.36, B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, TUMKUR-572168, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER-HR. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH, S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH, KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. SRI KANTHARAJU, S/O MUDDAPPA, SINGONAHALLI COLONY, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 3. SRI K G KEMPARAJU, S/O GANGAIAHKOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. - 2 - 4. SRI A A.SIDDAPPA, S/O AYYANNAPPA, MANCHAKAKUPPE, KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SATHISH B, ADV. FOR R1 AND R3, SRI K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV. FOR R2 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD DTD.21.3.12, PASSED BY THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN ID NOS.36 TO 39/2009 VIDE ANNEX-E AND ETC. IN WP NO.47731/2012: BETWEEN: 1. SRI G CHANDRAIAH, S/O GANGAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SRI K.G KEMPARAJU, S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KOLIHALLI, HIREHALLI POST, TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI SATHISH B, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF KAR MOBILES LTD., PLOT NO.36, B-37, HIREHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, TUMKUR-572168. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI B C PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DT.21.3.12, VIDE ANN-A PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL.LABOUR COURT JUDGE, BANGALORE IN ID.NO.36/09, & ID.NO.38/09 IN SO FAR AS NOT AWARDING FULL BACKWAGES FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL REINSTATEMENT AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03RD FEBRUARY, 2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CAV JUDGMENT These petitions are arising from the award passed by the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.Nos.36 to 39/2009. In terms of the impugned award, punishment of dismissal from employment imposed on the workmen pursuant to disciplinary enquiry have been set-aside and the workmen have been ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. However backwages are declined. Hence, the Management is before this Court in W.P No.15852/2012 assailing the aforementioned award, for reinstatement. 2. Two workmen – G.Chandraiah and K.G. Kemparaju who raised industrial dispute No.36/2009 and - 4 - 38/2009 respectively are before this Court in W.P NO.47781/2012 assailing the award declining the back wages. For the sake of convenience, the Management is referred to as ‘the petitioner’ and the workmen are referred to as ‘respondents’ in both petitions. 3. In terms of the order passed by the Management on 28.05.2009, the respondents have been dismissed from service pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry. Hence, the respondents raised the said dispute Nos.36 to 39/2009 before the Labour Court invoking Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1947’ for short). 4. The Labour Court held that the disciplinary enquiry is fair and proper. The said finding has not been questioned by the respondents. Later, the parties were permitted to lead evidence relating to the victimization alleged by the workmen. On appreciation of evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charges of misconduct against the respondents/workmen were established however, found that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the petitioner is grossly disproportionate, to the misconduct as - 5 - such, ordered for reinstatement by setting-aside the order of dismissal from service. 5. The facts are as under: - The respondents were employed under the petitioner in its plant at Tumakuru. Wage settlement between the Management and the Union had expired on 30.06.2007. The Union had presented new set of demands for the Management w.e.f. 01.07.2007. However, for 15 months since the expiry of the previous settlement, the demands made by the Union were not yet settled. Despite this, the workmen claimed that they continued to work without affecting the production. 6. It is stated, the Management on 16.09.2008, issued show cause notice to the respondents alleging that, on 19.08.2008, the respondents ghearaod the H R Department Officials for sometime in the premises of the petitioner. The notice also alleged that respondents abused the Management staff in filthy language and on 20.08.2008, the respondents along with some outsiders forced their entry into the factory premises and created violent atmosphere and assaulted couple of Management staff. - 6 - 7. On 20.08.2008, the respondents were placed under suspension pending enquiry. The respondents denied the charges and requested for supply of the copies of the documents which formed the basis for issuing charge sheet. It is stated that the documents were not furnished and later, they were furnished at the time of enquiry. It is stated that the explanation provided by the respondents were not accepted and domestic enquiry was conducted. 8. Parties led evidence and the enquiry officer has returned the verdict of guilty. Second show cause notice was issued. The respondents replied to the said notice denying the charges. However, the respondents were dismissed from service. 9. In the dispute raised, the Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper. The Labour Court, based on evidence led before it, held that charges of misconduct were proved. The Labour Court held that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, set-aside the order of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. - 7 - 10. The backwages are denied from the date of dismissal till one month from the date of award becomes enforceable. 11. The respondents No.2 and 4 in W.P No.15852/2012 have accepted the award denying the backwages. Respondents No.1 and 3 in W.P No.15852/2012 have assailed the award by filing W.P No.47731/2012. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to the impugned award would contend that the Labour Court has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and the charges are also held to be proved. Said findings have attained finality. This being the position, the Labour Court could not have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 to interfere with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Management. 13. It is urged that no ground what-so-ever is made out to interfere with the penalty as the charges levelled against the workmen were grave and the workmen assaulted the Management staff with the aid of outsiders and they barged into the premises with outsiders and such it is not a minor misconduct attracting lesser punishment and the - 8 - punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct of the respondents. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the order of reinstatement with continuity of service, consequential benefits is fully unjustified in a situation where the Labour Court has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and charges are established. Learned counsel would place reliance on the following judgments: 1. (2006) 12 SCC 570 – The Managing Director, The North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. K. Maruti 2. (2008) SSCC 569 – Chairman and MD V.S.P and Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu 3. (2002) 10 SCC 330 – Regional Manager, RSRTC Vs. Ghanashyam Sharma 4. (2008) II LLJ 945 SC – Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Management of Usha Breco Ltd., and another. 5. (1995) I LLJ 233 – Karnataka HC – Bank of India, Regional Office Vs. D.Padmanabhudu and another. 6. (1995) I LLJ 1076 – Karnataka HC – D Padmanabhudu Vs. Bank of India and another. 7. W.P.No.10082/2012 - Management of India Institute of Management, Bangalore and others Vs. D.Manikya 8. MANU/SC/0741/2007 – J.K.Synthetics Ltd., Vs. K.P.Agarawal and ors. - 9 - 15. Learned counsel for the respondents/workmen on the other hand would contend that the Labour Court is justified in modifying the penalty of dismissal from service and ordering reinstatement as the alleged incident took place in the factual background that the wage revision was pending for more than one and half years. If any incident has happened in a spur of moment, that cannot be a ground to terminate the services of the workmen who had otherwise unblemished career. He also urged that the Labour Court has taken note of the relevant factors into consideration and exercised its discretion judiciously. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is only confined to the decision making process by the Labour Court and not the actual decision and nothing is pointed out to hold that the impugned award is arbitrary or impermissible in the light of evidence placed before the Court. Thus, it is urged to dismiss the petition. 16. The learned counsel for the workmen in W.P No.47781/2012 urged that the order denying backwages is wholly unjustified as no reasons are assigned to deny the - 10 - backwages. It is urged that in view of law laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs Kranti Junior Adhyapa Mahavidyalaya [(2013) 10 SCC 324], the Labour Court ought to have awarded backwages as the dismissal from service is held to be unjustified. It is urged that refusal to award backwages is also a punishment and such punishment can be imposed only by assigning reasons based on evidence and no reasons are available to deny the backwages. 17. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 18. It is not in dispute that the Labour Court has recorded the findings that the disciplinary enquiry was fair and proper. It is also noticed that the Labour Court has found that the charges are proved. 19. It is well-settled principle of law that the Courts will not interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as long as the disciplinary authority under the applicable Standing Orders, Rules or Regulations has the power to impose the punishment so imposed. If the disciplinary authority has no power to impose the punishment so imposed, then, the Courts will certainly - 11 - interfere with the punishment. However, in exercise of power conferred under the Standing Orders or the Rules or Regulations, if the punishment is imposed, then, ordinarily the Court will not interfere with the punishment unless it is established that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. 20. In the instant case, the power of the Management to pass an order of dismissal for the misconduct which is established is not in dispute. Thus, the questions need to be answered are: (a) Whether the punishment from employment imposed by the employer is shockingly disproportionate calling for exercise of power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947?. (b) Whether the Labour Court is justified in denying full backwages after holding that the order of dismissal from employment is disproportionate to the misconduct? 21. The Labour Court while interfering with the penalty of dismissal has taken into consideration, the past misconduct of the four workmen. While considering the case of A.Siddappa, who is respondent No.4 in Writ Petition - 12 - No.15852/2012, the Labour Court has referred to the previous charge sheet which is marked at Ex.M.21. That relates to an incident of the year 1994. It has also referred to Ex.M.8, the finding of the domestic enquiry held against A.Siddappa wherein A.Siddappa was found guilty of charges and one increment for one year was stopped though the Management felt that the misconduct in the said case warranted dismissal of the workman. 22. The Labour Court noticed that the earlier proved misconduct took place 14 years prior to the incident under scrutiny. And the Labour Court took the view that in the said period of 14 years, no misconduct is alleged against A.Siddappa and concluded that one cannot hold that A.Siddappa did not improve his conduct. 23. As far as remaining workmen are concerned, the Labour Court noticed that on few occasions earlier, the workmen remained unauthorizedly absent for work which resulted in Management issuing memo and workmen tendered apology and the cases were closed against those workmen. - 13 - 24. As far as the police complaint at Ex.M31 against Kantaraju - the petitioner in I.D No.37/2009, the Labour Court noticed that it is the dispute between two private individuals and nothing to do with the petitioner. 25. The Labour Court also took note of then prevailing situation where the demand from the Union was pending and same was not settled for about year and half since expiry of the earlier settlement. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court has taken a view that exchange of words to insist for the compliance of the demands by the Union has resulted in gherao and such incident cannot be construed as one warranting dismissal and the Labour Court has held that the act was not committed to insult or annoy anyone. Considering the fact that the demand by the Union was pending consideration for long time, this Court is of the view that the award interfering with the punishment in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 is something which requires correction in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction. The question for consideration is view taken by the Labour Court is based on - 14 - evidence or no evidence and whether the Labour Court has exercised Section 11A jurisdiction judiciously. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Usha Breco Mazdur Sangh supra and Regional Manager, RSRTC supra, to contend that the order of dismissal from service/employment passed by the Management should not be lightly be interfered under Section 11A of the Act of 1947. 27. In Usha Breco supra, the Apex Court has considered the question whether the Labour Court overstepped its jurisdiction in reversing the finding of guilty arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The finding of the Apex Court is the evidence led before the disciplinary authority did not enable the Labour Court to set aside the findings of the disciplinary authority. In the instant case, the question is slightly different. The question is whether the evidence on record enabled the Labour Court substituting the punishment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 11A. In appropriate cases, even if the domestic enquiry is held to be proper and workman is found guilty, the Labor Court has - 15 - the power to substitute the punishment provided the materials support such decision. 28. On consideration of overall materials on record, it is evident that the wage settlement had expired one and half years ago and the discussion relating to revision of wages was pending. It is quite possible that some amount of frustration might have been built among the workmen and it got triggered on the day of the incident. Though, this Court is not justifying such conduct, while called upon to set aside the award for reinstatement, passed by the Labour Court, this Court holds that that the view taken by the Labour Court is not something impermissible given the facts of the case. It is true that the Labour Court will not normally interfere with the penalty in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act of 1947. However, it has the jurisdiction to interfere with the penalty in appropriate cases where the penalty is grossly of shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct. 29. As far as the ratio in Regional Manager, RSRTC supra, it is to be noticed that in the said case, the Apex Court was dealing with the quantum of punishment imposed on the conductor of a bus who failed to issue tickets - 16 - to the passengers. The Apex Court noticed that issuance of ticket being the main duty of the conductor, the High Court is not justified in reversing the penalty of dismissal. 30. In the instant case, the misconduct alleged is not in respect of the main duty. The misconduct alleged is the assault on some of the officials. Hence, on facts, the case is distinguishable. 31. Taking into consideration that the incident took place in the backdrop of long standing demand for settlement of wages has exercised the discretion to reinstate all employees including A.Siddappa invoking Section 11A of the Act of 1947. Though, one may argue that the Management is justified in imposing penalty of termination, the discretion exercised by the Labour Court invoking Section 11A of the Act of 1947 to direct reinstatement without backwages cannot be said to be one without jurisdiction or impermissible exercise of jurisdiction. The award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement is also one plausible view in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, this Court does not find reasons to interfere with the - 17 - discretion exercised by the Labour Court insofar as award for reinstatement. 32. Learned counsel for the workmen has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited vs The Employees of M/S Hindustan Tin Works (AIR 1979 SC 75) to contend that workmen are entitled to full backwages in case of illegal termination. It is to be noticed that it is not a case where the termination is set aside on the premise that enquiry is not fair and proper and charges of misconduct are not proved. In Hindustan Tin Works supra, it was a case of illegal retrenchment and not a case of dismissal on account of misconduct. Hence, the ratio in the aforementioned case does not come to the aid of the workmen. 33. The submission of the learned counsel for the workmen based on the law in Deepali Gundu supra, also does not come to the aid of the workmen. In the very same judgment, the Apex Court has held that the Labour Court in its discretion may deny backwages when order of dismissal is substituted by reinstatement despite the charges of misconduct being proved. It is indeed true that the Labour - 18 - Court has not assigned reasons for denying the backwages. However what is required to be noticed is the Labour Court held that the charges are proved and said finding has attained finality. In such situation, if the reinstatement is ordered as a lesser punishment, the payment of backwages is not automatic. In such situation, the principle of ‘no work no pay’ apply. Despite this, if the Labour Court is to award backwages, then there has to be the reasons. 34. The further submission based on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Ram Daras Yadav [(2010) 2 SCC 236] is not helpful to the workmen. In the said case, the High Court has recorded a finding that the incident alleged against the employee is not proved as the alleged victim had put it in writing that the incident has not taken place. The Apex Court in its judgment has held that it is not in a position to verify the veracity of the rival contentions and in those circumstances granted 50% backwages. In the case on hand, the charges are held to be proved and there is no challenge to the said finding. Two workmen though have assailed the award; the challenge is - 19 - confined to the part of the award denying backwages and nothing more. 35. In Hindustan Motors Vs Tapan Kumar [(2002) 6 SCC 41], the Apex Court dealing with a fact situation where the Labour Court having held that the misconduct is not established, passed an award of reinstatement and directed full backwages and took a view that even in such cases, where the charges are not established, the award for full payment of backwages is not justifiable and awarded only 50% backwages. In the instant case, the charges are held to be proved in the disciplinary enquiry as well as before the Labour Court. Hence, the said judgment cannot be applied to pay backwages. 36. As already noticed, the Management was enabled under law to impose penalty of dismissal. The Labour Court by taking into consideration, the long standing demand for settlement of wages and the previous conduct of workmen has passed an award for reinstatement. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court is justified in denying the backwages. - 20 - 37. However, the question that needs consideration is, “Whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding continuity of service and all consequential benefits”? 38. In D.Padhamanabhudu Vs Bank of India (Writ Appeal No.2594/1994), the Division bench of this Court held that after having found the workmen guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court is not justified in reinstating the workman substituting the penalty of dismissal. 39. However, a fine line of distinction does exist between the case on hand and the one in the judgment cited above. In the said case, an employee working in bank, indulged in misappropriation and same cannot be equated with a ghearao and assault though the assault is also a misconduct attracting a penalty of dismissal. 40. In Management of Indian Institute of Management Vs Manikya (Writ Appeal No.379/2010), the Division bench of this Court held that after having found the workmen guilty of misconduct, the Labour Court is not justified in awarding backwages after substituting the penalty of dismissal with reinstatement. In addition, the Court has also held that the benefit of continuity of service - 21 - cannot be granted and if granted, it can be granted only for calculating the retirement benefits and not for increments etc, when the penalty of dismissal is substituted for reinstatement. In that case, the misconduct was in subordination and rude behavior. The workman in that case had two years of service left. In this case, the misconduct alleged is slightly grave, however in the backdrop of longstanding demand by all workmen, for settlement of wages. 41. This Court is also conscious of the fact that Courts will not impose the penalty and it is for the employer to impose the penalty. However, in Management of Indian Institute of Management supra, the Division bench of this Court noticing the fact that the workmen had only two years of service, imposed penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Among the respondents, one has retired in 2021, another due to retire in June 2025, another in 2031 and the last one in 2034. 42. The dispute is pending since 2009. Hence this Court is of the view that three increments with cumulative effect should balance the conflicting claims. - 22 - 43. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition No.15852/2012 is allowed-in- part. (ii) The award dated 21.03.2012 in I.D.Nos.36 to 39/2012 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, so far as reinstatement of the respondents/workmen is confirmed. (iii) The three annual increments of the respondents/workmen are withheld with cumulative effect. Accordingly the impugned award for continuity of service with all consequential benefits is modified. (iv) The respondents/workmen are entitled to continuity of service only for calculating retirement benefits. (v) The wages payable from the date of award of the Labour Court (after taking into consideration the effect of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect ) shall be paid to the respondents after adjusting Section 17B wages already paid. (vi) If the monetary benefits payable to workmen is less than Section 17B wages already paid, the petitioner shall not be entitled to refund. - 23 - (vii) The respondent No.4 - A.Siddappa has attained the age of superannuation and is not entitled to reinstatement but only entitled to monetary benefits as held above. (viii) Writ Petition No.47731/2012 is dismissed. (ix) No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE Brn/THM