- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 38146 OF 2014 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI K HIMAGIRI S/O.K.CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT.NO.39, 1ST "A" CROSS, YESWANTH NILAYA, 2ND FLOOR, GOKULA EXTENSION, DEVASANDRA, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE-560036. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER THE TAJ WEST-END, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER-H.R THE TAJ WEST-END, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, IN REF.NO.13/2010, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 DATED 18.11.2013, VIDE ANNEX-F TO THE WRIT PETITION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK INTO THE POST HELD BY HIM, WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES FROM DATE OF THE FORCING RESIGNATION ON 22.6.2009 TILL THE DATE OF HIS REINSTATEMENT. 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 A workman with the respondents [M/s. Taj West-End, Bengaluru], has filed this petition calling in question the Award dated 18.11.2013 in Reference No.13/2010 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. This Reference by the Government of Karnataka to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] is to adjudicate on the dispute raised by the petitioner contending that the respondents have obtained his resignation on 22.06.2009 under duress and unjustifiably removed him from service by the order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 dated 06.07.2009. The Labour Court has rejected the Reference with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 2. The petitioner has joined the respondents as a casual worker in the year 1997, he is taken on probation in the year 2005 and his services are confirmed with effect from 01.04.2006. The petitioner, in the year 2009 is served with the charges stating inter alia that he had raised purchase requisition and received materials from a vendor contrary to certain guidelines. The respondents have also alleged that the petitioner has received Rs.24,000/- in cash as bribe from the vendor. The petitioner has filed his response dated 20.03.2009 showing cause against the allegations and requesting the respondents to withdraw the charge sheet, revoke his suspension and permit him to report to duty. 3. The petitioner has sought for Reference as aforementioned, contending that the enquiry was scheduled to be held at 11:30 a.m. on 22.06.2009. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 When he appeared for the enquiry, he was offered a cup of juice, and he within the next ten - fifteen minutes was asked to meet the second respondent. He was not completely conscious because he had accepted the cup of juice offered, and the second respondent taking advantage of his condition took his signature on a paper which had a typed text on the false assurance of paying him compensation in a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. He was shocked to receive the termination order dated 06.07.2009 along with the cheque for Rs.50,098/-. 4. The respondents have contested the Reference, amongst others, that the enquiry proceedings was closed because the petitioner voluntarily submitted his resignation on 22.06.2009. The petitioner has received Service Certificate on 06.07.2009, and he has received a sum of Rs.31,235/- on 16.07.2009 in full and final settlement of his account and he has received a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 further sum of Rs.50,098/- on 29.08.2009 in full and final settlement of all amounts to his credit in PF account. The respondents allege that after receiving the entire amount, the petitioner has caused legal notice, for the first time alleging, that he was under duress in signing the letter of resignation dated 22.06.2009. 5. The Labour Court has framed additional Issues for its consideration to adjudicate on the dispute referred and these Issues are, whether the respondents prove that the petitioner has voluntarily tendered his resignation. The petitioner has examined himself as WW.1 and a co-worker [Sri. S. Anniyappan] as WW.2 and marked different exhibits. The respondents have examined the General Manager, HR as MW.1 and marked different exhibits, including the details of the payments made and copy of the Experience Certificate issued to the petitioner. The Labour Court, upon appreciation of this evidence - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 on record, has opined that the respondents are able to establish that the petitioner has voluntarily tendered his resignation. 6. The petitioner's grievance with the Labour Court's finding on the additional Issue is examined in the light of the following: 6.1 The petitioner in his evidence, as recorded by the Labour Court has stated that he attended the enquiry scheduled on 22.06.2009, that like all others he was also offered a cup of juice but he was forced to drink the same, he lost his consciousness and when he was in such a condition, the respondents have made him to sign the resignation letter dated 22.06.2009 - Ex.M1. The respondents have produced the proceedings sheet in the domestic enquiry. 6.2 The Labour Court has observed from these proceedings sheet [Ex.M28] that the fifth sitting was held on 22.06.2009 [at 11:30 a.m.], that both the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 petitioner and his co-worker [Sri. Anniyappan] were present and the petitioner has filed a copy of his resignation letter which is received by the Enquiry Officer. 6.3 The Enquiry Officer has read over the contents of the resignation letter, that both the petitioner and the co-employee have signed the proceedings sheet. It is in the light of this evidence that the Labour Court has opined as follows: "When the contents of this Ex.M28 are taken into consideration, it is abundantly clear that the story of the supplying of the juice to all the participants in the enquiry, the first party being forced to consume the juice, then he becoming unconscious and in such a state of mind he was forced to write a resignation letter, become most improbable and unbelievable. The same are concocted only for the purpose of making a ground to submit an application with the Conciliation Officer." 6.4 The Labour Court, apart from entering an opinion as aforesaid because of the evidence as per - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12596 WP No. 38146 of 2014 Ex.M28, has also examined the resignation letter dated 22.06.2009 [Ex.M1], to opine that this letter is in the petitioner's own hand writing which is clean, clear and specific without any change. The Labour Court has opined that these circumstances belie the petitioner's case that his resignation letter [Ex.M1] was obtained when he was unconscious or in a semi- unconscious state of mind. This Court, on consideration of this material, is not persuaded to opine that the Labour Court's view is without evidence or is perverse, and as such, the writ petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB