- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 67802 OF 2011 (L-TER) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 66724 OF 2011 (L-TER) WRIT PETITION NO. 66725 OF 2011 (L-TER) IN W.P. NO.67802 OF 2011: BETWEEN: 1. YASEENN KAHN S/O. MUSKIN KHAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 1a. FEROZAKHANAM W/O LATE YASEENKHAN, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSPET, DIST: VIJAY NAGAR. 1b. FEROZAKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SERVICE, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSPET, DIST: VIJAY NAGAR. 1c. SHARINKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SERVICE, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSPET, DIST: VIJAY NAGAR. 1d. MOSHINKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. SERVICE, CHITTAWADAGI, HOSPET, DIST: VIJAY NAGAR. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA SUGARS AND REFINERIES LTD., CHITAWADIGI, HOSPET, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.29 11:19:44 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 DIST: BALLARI, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHITAWADIGI. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A ORDER OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER THAT DEEM FIT QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI IN KID NO.23/2008 DATED 21/06/2011 AT ANNEXURE-K DENYING 100% BACKWAGES TO THE PETITIONER AND PASS ANY SUITABLE ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY 100% BACKWAGES WITH CONTINUITY, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN W.P. NO.66724 OF 2011: BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INDIA SUGARS AND REFINERIES LTD., CHITWADIGI-583 211, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHITWADIGI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. YASEENN KAHN S/O. MUSKIN KHAN, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S., 1a. FEROZAKHANAM W/O LATE YASEENKHAN, 1b. FEROZAKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, 1c. SHARINKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, 1d. MOSHINKHAN S/O YASEENKHAN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 ALL ARE MAJOR, R/O. QUARTERS NO.F-91, ISR COLONY, CHITWADIGI-583 211. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 21/06/2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, IN KID. NO.23/2008, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E. IN W.P. NO. 66725 OF 2011: BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF THE INDIA SUGARS AND REFINERIES LTD., CHITWADIGI-583 211, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI, BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHITWADIGI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE) AND: MOHAMMAD GOUSE S/O. DADUSAB, AGE: 51 YEARS, R/O: QUARTERS NO.31, ISR COLONY, CHITAWADAGI, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 25/04/2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.49/2008 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) W.P. No.67802/2011 is filed by the workman challenging the part of the award dated 21.06.2011 in KID No.23/2008 which has declined 50% backwages despite holding that the charges against the petitioner are not established. 2. W.P. No.66724/2011 is filed by the management which has questioned the part of the award which directed reinstatement of the workman and 50% backwages. 3. W.P. No.66725/2011 is filed by the management challenging the award dated 25.04.2011 in REF. No.49/2008 which directed reinstatement as well as 100% backwages. 4. The facts in W.P. No.67802/2011 are as under:- 4.1 The workman was employed under the respondent/ establishment. The workman was suspended on 09.08.2002 on the allegation that the petitioner/workman collected money - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 from some of other workmen of the respondent/ establishment on the assurance that he would get certain work done for the employees of the respondent. 4.2 It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. However, the proceedings were not concluded and without any concrete report and evidence, the workman was dismissed from employment on 01.03.2008. 4.3 It is stated that on 08.11.2004 one more charge sheet is filed against the workman alleging that the workman abused Cane Manager and later, one more charge sheet is issued on 10.12.2007 alleging that the workman abused one of the higher officers of the establishment, on cell phone. And on all these 3 charges the enquiry though initiated was not completed and later in terms of order dated 01.03.2008, the workman was dismissed from service. 4.4 The workman raised an Industrial Dispute. The Labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair and proper and parties were permitted to lead evidence. After recording - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the charges leveled against the workman are not established. Consequently, passed an award directing reinstatement and granted 50% backwages and remaining 50% backwages denied. 5. As already noted above, to the extent of denial of 50% backwages, the petitioner is before this Court to the extent of granting reinstatement and 50% backwages, the employee is before this Court in W.P. No.66724/2011. 6. The allegation that the petitioner/workman collected money from certain employees is not established by adducing the evidence of those employees from whom he is said to have collected the money and the allegation that the petitioner has abused the Cane Officer is not established by not adducing the evidence of Cane Officer and the charge that the petitioner abused another employee on cell phone is not established as the person to whom abuses were allegedly hurled at was not examined. Under these circumstances this Court does not find - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner/establishment would seek to produce the documents along with a memo. The documents are not accompanied by application for production. The writ petition is of the year 2011. The Labour Court proceeding is of the year 2008. Under these circumstances the petitioner is not permitted to produce those documents. Now the next question is; whether the backwages to the extent of 50% is just rightly denied by the Labour Court. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/workman was the Trade Union president and the bye-law of the Trade Union also permitted the ex-employee to be the office bearer of the Trade Union and he was pursuing the cause of the Union and he was not gainfully employed and to this effect, he has led evidence and to this evidence, there is no counter evidence by the respondent/management. Thus, it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 is urged that the Labour Court is not justified in awarding the 50% backwages. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere and the Labour Court denied 50% backwages. In addition it is also urged that the order of reinstatement itself is erroneous as the relationship of the petitioner and the respondent has severed and not cordial and in such an event reinstatement would not serve any purpose. 10. It is noticed that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2019. It is noticed that the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for declining the 50% backwages. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place the reliance of the judgment of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Others,1. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that the full backwages can be awarded in case the termination in itself 1 2013 (10) SCC 324 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 is illegal and without any enquiry. In this case, it is noticed that though the enquiry was initiated, the enquiry was not concluded. Thus, in effect, there was termination without holding any enquiry. 11. The petitioner has led evidence to show that he was not working elsewhere during the period of termination. Though such a statement is made, it is bit difficult to accept this contention that he was not working elsewhere. Considering the nature of work the petitioner was doing before his removal from employment, the Court is of the view that the petitioner must have worked elsewhere but probably might not have received the same benefits that he had received before termination. 12. The Court has noticed that the award is passed in the 2011 and the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2008, the backwages is not paid and reinstatement is also not done and 17-B wages is not paid. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 13. Under these circumstances, the Court would be of the view that 75% backwages would be justified in the facts and circumstance of the case. 14. The petitioner is also entitled to 7% interest from the date of award, till the date of payment of the backwages at 75%. 15. W.P. No.66725/2011 arises out of REF. No.49/2008. The Labour Court has ordered reinstatement and full backwages. It is to be noticed that in this case the allegation is that the respondent/workman has abused some of the workers of the petitioner/establishment. As already noticed, the said allegation is also not established and enquiry was not concluded and the Labour Court has concluded that the alleged dispute has nothing to do with the petitioner/establishment. Under these circumstances, awarded 100% backwages. 16. However, it is noticed that the Labour Court has not assigned any reasons for awarding 100% backwages, though the respondent claimed that he was not gainfully employed - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16242 WP No. 67802 of 2011 C/W WP No. 66724 of 2011 WP No. 66725 of 2011 elsewhere during the period of suspension and termination the Court is the view that 100% backwages is not justifiable and 75% backwages would balance the equity provided, the petitioner is also made liable to pay interest at the rate of 7% from the date of award, till the date of payment. 17. Accordingly, W.P. No.66725/2011 is allowed in part. 18. Hence, the following;- ORDER i) W.P. No.67802/2011 is allowed in part. ii) W.P. No.66724/2011 is dismissed. iii) It is submitted that the establishment is legally closed, the legal consequences would follow. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 3 SL NO.: 6