- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 63272 OF 2011 (L-RES) BETWEEN: KHALEELAHMED S/O. HUSSEINSAB RAMPUR, AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. ASHRAF MANZIL, NO.4805, SHIVAJINAGAR, BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MODERN STEEL AND WIRE PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY KRISHNACHANDRA S/O KANHAYALAL MALU- PARTNER, SHOP NO.238-239, MALU NAGAR, JAMBOTI ROAD, NAVAGE CROSS, BELGAUM. 2. NANDAKISHORE MALU-MANAGING DIRECTOR, PARTNER M/S MODERN STEEL AND WIRE PRODUCTS, CORPORATION OFFICE,NO.8, II FLOOR, I MAIN, GANDHINAGAR, KALIDASNAGAR, BANGALORE-560009. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE QUASHING AND MODIFYING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.65/2004 DATED 30/10/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 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 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the workman calling in question the award dated 30.10.2010 passed in Reference No.65/2004 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1. 2. The relevant factual matrix in nutshell is that the petitioner-workman was appointed by the respondent- Management on 05.01.1986 as a clerk and purchase officer without financial powers. That on 28.12.2022 the workman was directed not to come to the factory as his service is not required. Hence, the workman has raised a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472. The management entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the said proceedings. The Labour Court, 1 Hereinafter referred to as “Labour Court” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “the Act” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 appreciating the relevant factual matrix, has held as follows: “10. On perusal of the evidence laid by both parties it is clear that the workman worked in the management from 5.1.1986 and workman submitted his resignation letter as per Ex.R.1 on 22.11.2001 and prayed to accept the same w.e.f. 10.12.2001. The workman has contended that this resignation letter was not accepted and was not acted upon. The workman has not denied that he did not give resignation letter as per Ex.R.1. The management has not denied in their objections that they have not accepted the resignation letter at any time, though it is mentioned on Ex.R.1 that it was accepted. The management has not established that it accepted the resignation letter of the workman. If the resignation letter of the workman was accepted his name would have been removed from the attendance register, wage register and from the factory records. The management could have informed the concerned department regarding resignation of the workman, who has not settled any service benefits with the management. Therefore without discussing much I hold that though the workman gave - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 resignation letter to the management it was not acted upon and the workman continued the work even after giving resignation letter till 28.12.2002 on which day he was asked not to come to duty. The management has contended that the workman himself abandoned the service and he did not attend duty. though the management went to his residence twice for calling him to attend duty. The workman raised dispute before the conciliation officer, Belgaum before which the management appeared. They have not contended before the conciliation authority that they were ready to take back the workman in to service. Therefore I am of the opinion that the workman was orally terminated from service w.e.f. 28.12.2002. 11. Since the management has admitted that the workman worked from 1986 till December 2002, I hold 2 that the workman worked for more than 240 days. 12. There is no reason for the workman to remain absent from attending duty from 28.12.2002. It appears that there were misunderstandings between the partners of the management and therefore with a view to reduce the employees, the management might - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 have asked the workman not to attend the duty from 28.12.2002. Therefore I hold that the management has terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 28.12.2002. 13. The management has contended that the workman himself abandoned the work and they are ready to take the workman to duty at any time. It is admitted that no notice of termination was issued to the workman. No compensation was paid to the workman. Therefore I hold that the management terminated the services of the workman illegally. I further hold that the management is not justified in dismissing the workman from service. Hence for the reasons stated above my findings on issue Nos. 4 & 5 are in the affirmative and Issue No. 6 is in the negative.” (emphasis supplied) 3. Thereafter, the Labour Court, while considering the issue of back wages, by noticing that the Management is running a private establishment, has recorded a finding that 20% back wages be awarded. Hence, the Labour Court passed the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 “AWARD a. Award is passed. b. Petition is allowed in part without costs. c. The oral order of the II-Party management dated 28.12.2002 dismissing the workman from service is hereby set aside. d. The management is directed to reinstate the 1st party-workman in to service with service and other continuity consequential benefits and 20% of back wages from the date of dismissal i.e., 28.12.2002 till he is reinstated. e. The management is directed to pay wages for the month of November 2001 and for the month of December till 28.12.2001 to the 1st party- workman. f. Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication. g. The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this award. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 h. The Government is hereby directed to intimate both parties about the publication of award by registered acknowledgement due, without fail.” 4. The limited contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that since for no fault of the workman he was removed from service, 100% back wages is to be ordered. 5. The respondent is served and unrepresented. 6. It is forthcoming from the material on record that the Labour Court has set aside the dismissal of the workman. However, while ordering for reinstatement, although the Labour Court has noticed certain judgments in that regard, suffice to note that the Labour Court without assigning any reasons, has ordered for payment of 20% back wages. 7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that awarding of back wages rests with the sole discretion of the Labour Court. However the said discretion is required to be exercised after appreciating all the relevant material on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 record. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that “if the management is in severe financial doldrums, it is left to the discretion of the Court. Nowadays, it is very difficult to run a private establishment due to various problems”. 8. There was no material on record before the Labour Court to record a finding that there was severe finance problem with the management. Once the order of dismissal has been set aside, in a normal course, the entire back wages is required to be awarded. However, the award of back wages is discretionary, which was required to be exercised by the Labour Court. There was no justification for the Labour Court to award only 20% back wages after it has recorded a finding that the order of dismissal is required to be set aside. Upon re-appreciation of the material on record, it is just and proper that the petitioner be awarded 50% back wages. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the above writ petition is allowed and the award dated - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11003 WP No. 63272 of 2011 30.10.2010 passed in Reference No.65/2004 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli is modified only to the extent of holding that the petitioner is entitled to 50% back wages from the date of dismissal i.e. on 28.01.2002 till the date of his reinstatement. The award of the Labour Court in all other respects remains unaltered. 10. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12