- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 75966 OF 2013 (L-TER) BETWEEN: M/S. NETALKAR POWER TRANSMISSION, BY ITS PARTNER SHRI SATISH DIGAMBAR NETALKAR, REGISTERED OFF 45/2G, PATIL GALLI, DHARWAD ROAD, (P.O.KHASBAG), BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI VITHAL NARAYAN DHAVALI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, 28/A, SAI NAGAR, IIND CROSS, VADGAON, TALUK & DIST: BELGAUM-590005. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PASS ANY ORDER, DIRECTIONS OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.4/2008 ON 07.09.2011 [ANNEXURE-A] AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the employer/management calling in question the award dated 07.09.2011 passed in Ref.No.4/2008 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent/workman was employed by the petitioner/complainant for the purpose of running various lathe machines, drill machines, grinders, etc. A show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007 was issued to the respondent/workman, alleging that on 26.03.2007, while on duty and operating a drill machine, he mishandled the equipment, resulting in damage that rendered the drill unusable. When the petitioner sought to recover the cost of the damaged drill from the respondent, he along with another workman, allegedly approached one of the partners of the petitioner and abused with indecent and vulgar language. Consequently, the respondent was called upon to submit his explanation vide show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007, which he did on 25.05.2007, claiming that he was 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 orally directed not to work. Thereafter, the workman initiated proceedings under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, registered as Ref. No.4/2008. Meanwhile, in relation to the allegations set out in the show-cause notice dated 23.04.2007, Articles of Charge was issued to the workman on 06.07.2007. A domestic enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 12.08.2008, found the workman guilty of the charges. 3. In the meanwhile, the workman had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the I.D. Act, contending, inter alia, that his services were terminated on 17.04.2007 without assigning any reasons. The same was referred for conciliation before the Labour Officer, Belagaum, which ended in a failure. Consequently, a reference was made under Section 10(1)(C) of the I.D. Act, vide order dated 27.12.2007, in Ref.No.4/2008 for adjudication of the dispute between the workman and the management with regard to the alleged order of dismissal dated 17.04.2007. In the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an application in Miscellaneous No.5/2010 under Section 33(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, seeking for permission to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman. The Labour Court, by its order dated 11.11.2010, allowed Miscellaneous No.5/2010 and permitted the management/employer to impose the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman for having committed misconduct as proved in the domestic enquiry, consequent to which, vide Communication dated 16.12.2010, the workman was dismissed from service with effect from 18.12.2010 for having committed the misconduct in respect of a charges alleged in the charge sheet dated 06.07.2007. Thereafter, vide award dated 17.09.2011, the Labour Court allowed Ref.No.4/2008, and accepted the reference of the workman and passed the following award: AWARD a. Award is passed. b. The reference of the workman is hereby accepted partly without costs. c. The order of the respondent-management terminating the workman from service from 17.4.2007 is hereby set aside. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 d. The claimant-workman is reinstated in to service with continuity of service, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the government. e. The claimant-workman is entitled to get 25% of back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of termination from service i.e., from 17.4.2007 till the date of award. f. The claimant-workman is also entitled to get wages for the month of March 2007 and till 16.4.2007. g. Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication. h. The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this award. i. The Government is hereby directed to intimate both parties about the publication of award by registered post acknowledgment due, without fail.” 4. Being aggrieved, the present writ is filed by the management/employer. 5. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent is served and unrepresented. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 6. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court having permitted to impose the punishment of dismissal of service of the workman vide order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Miscellaneous No.5/2010, consequent to which, the workman was dismissed from service with effect from 18.12.2010, the question of the Labour Court accepting the reference in Ref.No.4/2008 does not arise. It is further contended that although the dismissal of service of the workman with effect from 18.12.2010 was brought to the notice of the Labour Court in the proceedings in Ref.No.4/2008, erroneously the Labour Court had not considered the said contention in a proper perspective. 7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered and the materials on record have been perused. As noticed above, the respondent has served and unrepresented. 8. The following questions that arise for consideration in the present writ petition are: (i) Whether the Labour Court was justified in passing the award dated 07.09.2011 in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 Reference No.4/2008 and ordering for reinstatement of the workman notwithstanding the dismissal of the workman from service from 18.12.2012? 9. The relevant factual matrix with regard to the proceedings initiated by the management against the workman, as noticed above, is a matter of record. While the workman alleging termination of service by the management from 17.04.2007 was sought to be challenged, which was the subject matter of the proceedings in Reference No.4/2008, it is forthcoming that pursuant to the articles of charge dated 06.07.2007 an enquiry was conducted wherein the workman participated in the enquiry on various dates between 08.08.2007 to 04.04.2008 and also adduced his evidence. It is forthcoming that vide report dated 12.08.2008, the enquiry officer had recorded a finding that the charges alleged against the workman vide articles of charge dated 06.07.2007 have been proved. That in the proceedings initiated by the management under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act in Miscellaneous Application No.5/2010, although, initially, the workman was served and was placed ex- parte, the counsel appeared on behalf of the workman and the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 Labour Court vide its order dated 11.11.2010 while allowing the application filed by the management and permitting the management to impose the punishment of dismissal of the workman, has recorded a finding that the workman was fully aware of the proceedings despite which he has remained absent. 10. It is relevant to note that pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.5/2010, the workman was issued with an order of dismissal dated 16.12.2010 wherein he was dismissed w.e.f. 18.12.2010 for misconducts as mentioned in the charge sheet dated 06.07.2007 which fact was brought to the notice of the Labour Court in Reference No.4/2008. However the Labour Court by erroneously held that despite approval granted under the proceedings under Section 33 of the Act, the Management was required to justify the validity of the order of dismissal. 11. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in Reference No.4/2008, the workman had called in question the alleged order of his dismissal from service dated 17.04.2007 wherein according to the workman he was orally asked not to report for duty. However, it is pertinent to note that pursuant to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 the articles of charge dated 06.07.2007 in respect of which domestic enquiry was conducted wherein the workman had participated in the said proceedings and the enquiry officer by report dated 12.08.2008 had recorded a finding that the charges alleged against the workman were proved and the Labour Court pursuant to the order dated 11.11.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.5/2010 having permitted the management to dismiss the workman form service consequent to which the management passed the order of dismissal dated 16.12.2010 dismissing the workman w.e.f. 18.12.2010, the question of management justifying the alleged dismissal from service from 17.04.2007 does not arise. Hence, it is clear that the Labour Court has completely misdirected itself in allowing Reference No.4/2008 and passing the award dated 07.09.2011, which is impugned in the present petition. 12. In view of the discussions made above, the question framed for consideration is answered in the affirmative. 13. Hence, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11982 WP No. 75966 of 2013 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The award dated 07.09.2011 passed in Reference No.4/2008 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli is hereby quashed. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP para Nos.1 to 10 YAN para Nos.10 to end CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10