- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105714 OF 2018 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SHRI DADA KRISHNA ARDALE, AGE: 36 YEARS, R/O: BEDAKIHAL, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. & PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, VENKATESHWARA POWER PROJECT LTD., R/O: BEDAKIHAL, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. & RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2017 IN REFERENCE NO.10/2016, BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2025.12.16 11:21:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award dated 31.01.2017 in Reference No.10/2016 on the file of Labour Court at Belagavi. The reference sought by the petitioner-workman is rejected. The workman is before this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was employed by the respondent with effect from 2004 as Weigh Bridge Operator. It is urged that the petitioner was terminated on 13.12.2012 without any notice, any allegation and enquiry. Thus, the petitioner raised the industrial dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court. 3. The Labour Court has held that the employer is not justified in dismissing the petitioner from employment without holding any enquiry. The respondent had taken a contention that the workman was employed through a labour contractor, however for want of evidence, said contention is rejected. 4. The management also contended that petitioner was working in the respondent-factory only during crushing season - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 and his employment was seasonal, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any protection under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (8Act of 19479). Said contention is also rejected and the Labour Court has held that the said contention is not available in view of Section 2(oo) of the Act of 1947. 5. The Labour Court denied reinstatement on the premise that the workman has admitted in the cross- examination that he was a Member of the Gram Panchayat (at the time of cross-examination). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced the certificate issued by the Panchayat, which would indicate that the petitioner was a Member of the Bedakihal Gram Panchayat from 05.06.2015. However, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner was terminated from service in the year 2012 itself without there being any inquiry. 7. Though the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that being a member of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner has incurred the disqualification to be the employee of the respondent no provision of law is pointed out or no by-law of the respondent is placed before the Court to show that petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 was ineligible to be employed because of being a member of the Gram Panchayat. 8. The finding that there was no enquiry and no allegation against the petitioner has attained finality as the award of the Labour Court in this behalf is not questioned by the employer. 9. Now the question is whether the Labour Court is justified in denying reinstatement and backwages. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others1 to contend that the petitioner should have been reinstated with full backwages. 11. In the aforementioned judgment, the Apex Court dealing with the question of illegal termination has held that in case, termination of an employee is held to be illegal, there has to be an order of reinstatement and payment of backwages. 1 (2013) 10 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 12. It is indeed true that the judgment is rendered in the backdrop of the service rules applicable to the petitioner therein. However, the principles laid down can be certainly applied to the cases coming under the Industrial Disputes Act if the facts attract the ratio. Admittedly (at this stage), there was no inquiry or no charges against the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that respondent offered the employment to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not turn up and would refer to the letter addressed by the petitioner. 14. It is seen from the said letter that the petitioner refused to accept the offer made by the respondent on the premise that offer is made to a post which is lower in grade to the post where he was working earlier. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was offered the same or similar job that he was holding prior to the illegal termination. 15. It is also noticed that there is no law which prevents the Member of the Gram Panchayat from being employed. The Member of the Gram Panchayat is not on pay roll and it is not an employment either under the Gram Panchayat or under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 State. The member is only paid honorarium for attending the meetings. It is not the case of the respondent that the member has to attend the meetings at the Gram Panchayat on daily basis. 16. More importantly when the petitioner was removed from employment, he was not the Member of the Gram Panchayat. 17. This being the position, the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement on the premise that he was the Gram Panchayat Member is erroneous. The Labour Court should have ordered reinstatement. 18. The petitioner has urged in the claim petition that he is not employed after the termination. However, in the writ petition, no such contention is raised. It is also required to notice that the petitioner contested the Gram Panchayat election and in the circumstances, Court is of the view that he must have been in some kind of employment after the termination. 19. It is to be noticed that in the writ petition, the petitioner has not pleaded that he is unemployed despite award - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 of reinstatement. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not filed application seeking 17B wages. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the petitioner must be working elsewhere. However, since the order of termination is illegal, the Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to backwages from the date of termination till the date of the award. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances and the pleadings, the Court is of the view the petitioner is not entitled to 100% backwages. However, petitioner is entitled to 75% backwages. 20. Since the backwages which is due to the petitioner on account of illegal termination is with the employer, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount. 21. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned award dated 31.07.2017 is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14949 WP No. 105714 of 2018 iii. The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner. iv. Petitioner is entitled to 75% backwages from the date of termination i.e. from 14.12.2012 till the date of the award i.e. 31.01.2017. v. The petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the award till the date of payment. vi. No order as to cost. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57