- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 69295 OF 2010 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SHEKHARGOUDA RANGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, RESIDENT OF LAXMESHWAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGEMENT OF TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER, LAXMESHWAR. 2. SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.N. NARASAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.20/2004 DATED:18/02/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, calling in question the order dated 18.02.2010 passed in REF.No.20/2004 on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli1, whereunder, the reference made by the workman has been partly accepted and the respondent was directed to pay compensation of ₹30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other consequential benefits. 2. The sole contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman in the present writ petition is that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court ought to have been a higher amount, and ought to have been at least a sum of ₹2,00,000/-, having regard to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Faridan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ 2 (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 497 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the award of the Labour Court is just and proper, having regard to the fact that the workman was a casual worker. 4. To a specific query as to whether the amount directed to be paid under the impugned order has been paid by the respondents, the learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submits that the said amount has not been paid. 5. It is forthcoming that the workman contended that he was appointed as a clerk by the respondent with effect from 01.05.1992 and was removed from service on 06.06.1993 on the ground that he had not satisfactorily discharged his duties. The workman initiated proceedings under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19473, and the same was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, wherein the following issues were framed: 1) Whether the claimant is a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act? 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 2) Whether the respondent management is an ‘Industry’ or Board or Institution under the Industrial Disputes Act? 3) Whether the claimant is entitled to the relief as per Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act or under Article 226 of Constitution of India? 4) Whether the respondent-management is justified in dismissing the services of the claimant w.e.f. 6.6.93? 5) If not, to what relief the claimant is entitled? 6. In the said proceedings, the workman examined himself as WW.1 and marked Exs.W1 to Ex.W18. On behalf of the respondents, MW.1 was examined; however, no documentary evidence was adduced. 7. The Tribunal, while considering Issue No.4, as to whether the respondent was justified in dismissing the workman from service, has held as under: “11. In this case, it is not the case of the respondent that they followed the conditions mentioned in Section 25- F of the I.D.Act before termination of his services. So the termination of services of the claimant by the respondent without following the procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, is illegal. The claim of the respondent that the claimant himself left the job cannot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 be accepted. If the claimant left the job, the respondent ought to have issued notice and ought to have taken action for his absence. No action was taken by the respondents. So under the facts and circumstances of the case, I come to the conclusion that the respondent failed to justify in dismissing the services of the claimant w.e.f. 6.6.93. Hence, issue No.4 is answered in the negative.” (emphasis supplied) 8. The Tribunal, while answering issue No.5 with regard to the nature of relief to be awarded, has held as under: “12. Issue No.5 :- In the claim petition, the claimant has not stated what happened after the termination of his services by the respondent. He has not stated that he was not gainfully employed after the termination of service. There is no plea in the counter statement in this respect. Only in the affidavit evidence, he has stated that he is unemployed. The evidence given by him regarding his unemployment is without plea. The initial onus is on the claimant. If the initial onus is discharged, then the burden shifts on the respondent to prove that the claimant is gainfully employed. In this case, the claimant was employed temporarily without calling applications from the public. 13. As per the case of the petitioner, he was dismissed on 6.6.93. He raised the dispute in the year 2004 i.e., after lapse of nearly 11 years. So under the facts and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 circumstances of the case, the claimant is not entitled for back wages. In this case reinstatement is also not feasible. If the compensation is awarded in lieu of reinstatement, it will meet the ends of justice. Considering the one year service rendered by the claimant, I come to the conclusion that awarding of compensation of Rs.30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits, will meet the ends of justice.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that the Tribunal held that the respondent was not justified in terminating the services of the workman. However, since the dismissal took place on 06.06.1993 and the dispute was raised only in 2004, after nearly 11 years and the impugned order is of the year 2010, the Labour Court deemed it expedient to award compensation of ₹30,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and other benefits. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into consideration the factual matrix of the matter, as noticed above, as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Faridan2, keeping in mind that the respondent is a public authority, it is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12733 WP No. 69295 of 2010 just and proper that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court be enhanced from ₹30,000/- to ₹75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order of the Labour Court up to date of payment. 11. The order of the Labour Court to the extent ordered as above shall stand modified. The order of the Labour Court in all other respects remains unaltered. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP para Nos.1 to 9 YAN para Nos.9 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10