- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 65346 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. JANNABAI W/O DUNDAPPA MALIGE, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 2. RUKMINI W/O SHANTHAPPA SINDHANUR, AGE: 41 YEARS, WORKING AS AYA, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1, HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 3. SANTOSHAMMA W/O JAKKAIAH, AGE: 41 YEARS, WORKING AS AYA, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. MEENAKSHI W/O KEMPANNA KAMBLE, AGE: 34 YEARS, WORKING AS AYA, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 5. NALLAPPA S/O KULLAYAPPA HARIJAN, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: WORKING AS WATCHMAN, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 6. HAVAPPA S/O PARASHURAM BHAVIKATTI, AGE: 34 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 7. SYADAPPA S/O YAMANAPPA KALLURI, AGE: 39 YEARS, WORKING AS AYA, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 8. PRABHAKAR S/O JAIRAM GONA, AGE: 39 YEARS, WORKING AS AYA, R/O: CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, DANDELI T1: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATOR, VISHVESHWARAYYA MINI TOWERS, BENGALURU-01. 3. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DANDELI, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN REFERENCE NO.12/2009 BEFORE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 29/01/2011 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K) PASSED IN REFERENCE NO.12/2009 BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONERS WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. The petitioners are assailing the award dated 29.01.2011 marked at Annexure-K. In terms of the said award, the petitioners’ reference is rejected. 3. The petitioners were earlier employed on contract basis for various works as Tailoring Teachers, Aayas and Watchman under 3rd respondent - Municipality. This fact is not in dispute. 4. In terms of order dated 19.07.2005, the petitioners’ employment was terminated and direction is issued to the Commissioner of City Municipality, Dandeli to pay compensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act of 1947’, for short). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 5. The petitioners raised a dispute contending that the provisions of the Act of 1947 have not been complied and mandatory notice as required under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 have not been issued and later meagre compensation is paid which is not in compliance with the requirement of Section 25 of the Act of 1947. 6. The dispute raised by the petitioners was referred to the Labour Court. In terms of the award passed by the Labour Court which is impugned in the present petition, the reference is rejected. 7. The Labour Court has held that the compensation payable to the petitioners is paid and petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. 8. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the petitioners have worked for more than 10 years under respondent No.3 and they are working as daily wagers. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that on earlier occasion before termination, the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.Nos.15686-697/2001 demanding minimum wages and same - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 was granted by this Court after noticing that the petitioners were paid less than minimum wages. 9. It appears that respondent No.3 took decision to retrench the petitioners and notice was issued on 28.12.2004. The Labour Court has concluded that the retrenchment notice was issued on 28.12.2004. The alleged notice is marked at Annexure-D. The said notice is a show-cause notice as can be seen from the nomenclature. In terms of the said notice, the petitioners were asked as to why the petitioners should not be removed from employment and 15 days’ time was granted to the petitioners to reply to the said show-cause notice. In terms of Annexure-E, the petitioners have replied to the said show-cause notice praying for regularisation. 10. Thereafter, in terms of order at Annexure-F, the petitioners were ordered to be terminated from service by 3rd respondent. No further order is communicated to the petitioners pursuant to the order passed by the 3rd respondent, who directed the Commissioner to terminate the petitioners' employment. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is not complied inasmuch as the retrenchment compensation is not paid which is required to be paid along with the order of termination. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, Public Health Care Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana)1, K.V. Anil Mithra and another v. Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and another2 and Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India and others3. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would urge that the petitioners having accepted the compensation without any protest are not entitled to seek any further relief and Labour Court is justified in rejecting the reference. 13. Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 governs the procedure relating to retrenchment of the employees and said provision reads as under: 1 (2010) 5 SCC 497 2 (2022) 17 SCC 505 3 (2003) 3 SCC 588 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 “25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. - No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until, - (a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette.” 14. On a reading of the said provision, it is evident that before retrenching the workmen, the employer has to issue one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and has to pay wages for the period of notice. 15. In addition to that, employer has to pay retrenchment compensation as required under Section 25-F(b) of Act of 1947. This is the mandatory condition precedent for retrenchment of the workman. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 16. No records are placed to show that the notice has been issued in compliance with requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and compensation is paid as required under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, the order at Annexure-F is not in compliance with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and same is liable to be set aside. 17. Unfortunately these aspects have not been considered by the Labour Court with reference to the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court erroneously proceeds on the assumption that the notice is issued before retrenching the workmen. The notice dated 28.12.2004 is not inconformity with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947. Hence, the consequence should follow. Hence the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Impound award dated 29.01.2011 is set aside. Petitioners are to be reinstated in employment as daily wagers. The petitioners are entitled to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14061 WP No. 65346 of 2011 backwages from the date of termination from service till the date of the award passed by the Labour Court. The backwages is denied from the date of the award passed by the Labour Court till date, as the petitioners have not raised a contention that they are not employed elsewhere during said period. The arrears of wages payable shall carry interest rate of 8% from the date when it became due (monthwise) till the date of payment. The petitioners are also entitled to continuity of service and consequential benefits. This order shall be complied within two months from this date. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 88