- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 22690 OF 2023 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/S HANUMAN TRANSPORT COMPANY PVT LTD REGD OFFICE AT NO.26, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 BADAGABETTU, R P NO.27, UDUPI 576101, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT K SUMATHI W/O SUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2B-211, 7TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, KUKKIKATTE, UDUPI POST-576101. 2. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BAGNALORE-560001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHRIHARI., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; MS. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R2) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE LABOUR COURT, BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI, IN I.D NO. 10 OF 2019 AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DATED 28.06.22 ANNEXURE-N AS NULL AND VOID. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, an Establishment as contemplated under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'], has called in question the Award dated 28.06.2022 [Annexure- N] in I.D. No.10/2019 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Udupi District, Udupi [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by the impugned Award has allowed the application filed by the first respondent under Section 10A of the ID Act setting aside the petitioner's order dismissing her from service - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 directing her reinstatement with back wages. The Tribunal has also directed the petitioner to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of dismissal. The first respondent has initiated proceedings for recovery 2. On 06.03.2025, it was canvassed before this Court on behalf of the petitioner by its learned counsel, Sri Manjunatha B, that this Court must interfere with the direction to reinstate the first respondent, but this Court has recorded that the learned counsel's endeavors are unsuccessful. At that stage, Sri Manjunatha B stated that this Court may consider the other question viz., this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's direction to pay back wages with interest in the light of certain circumstances with Sri Shrihari K, the learned counsel for the first respondent, asserting that the question of back wages may be considered but there - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 should be no reason why the petitioner must not reinstate the first respondent. 3. Sri Manjunatha B ultimately submitted that the first respondent would be reinstated at the earliest, but on the condition that the payment of back wages be subject to this Court's decision. It is now stated in unison that the first respondent is reinstated. As such, the question that remains for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with the direction to pay back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement with direction to pay interest @ 6% per annum. 4. This question must necessarily be answered in the light of the two substantial canvass on behalf of the petitioner, and these are that [a] the first respondent has admitted in her cross examination that she is in employment with another Establishment after she was dismissed from service and [b] the petitioner can bring on record material to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 demonstrate that the first respondent was not only employed but was also employed on better terms. 5. The first material aspect is not contested, but the learned counsel for the first respondent proposes to canvass that the first respondent's alternative employment was not on same wages as was last drawn wages from the petitioner. However, this is belied by the indisputable fact as borne out by the details shared by the ESI Authorities that the first respondent was drawing the salary which is substantially higher than the last drawn salary. This undisputed fact must clinch the Issue, and this Court must interfere with the direction to pay back wages and interest. It is undisputed that she was not paid wages for two months preceding her dismissal. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition stands disposed of modifying the Tribunal's impugned Award - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11284 WP No. 22690 of 2023 in I.D. No.10/2019 dated 28.06.2022 [Annexure-N] quashing the direction to pay back wages with interest @ 6% per annum, but directing the petitioner to pay salary for two [2] months preceding the date of dismissal and continue to pay the current wage as the first respondent would be entitled to with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8