- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 63976 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O JINNAPPA KHANAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: NOW IN SERVICE, R/O. HARAPANAHALLI, BALLARI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF LOK SHIKSHANA TRUST, KOPPIKAR ROAD, BY SECRETARY, HUBBALLI. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) 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 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.62/2004 DATED: 16/02/2010 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-“E”. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the part of the award dated 16/02/2010 in REF.No.62/2004 passed by the Labour Court declining to grant back wages to the petitioner, though it held that the petitioner is to be reinstated on the premise that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. 3. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was employed by the respondent and petitioner was removed from employment alleging some misconduct. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Before the Labour Court, evidence is led relating to alleged misconduct. The Labour Court concluded that the charges are not proved and thereafter, set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement without backwages. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that since the charges are not proved, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 Surwase vs Kranti Junior Adhyapak & Ors.1 would apply to the facts of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the ratio laid down in the case of Deepali Gundu supra is in the realm of service jurisprudence and not in labour jurisprudence and apart from that, the petitioner's conduct does not entitle him to full backwages. Even after reinstatement pursuant to the impugned award, he remained unauthorisedly absent and thereafter, he was again removed from service after holding necessary enquiry. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. From the records it is seen that before terminating the petitioner, enquiry was not held. Thereafter, the Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence and after considering the evidence led by both parties, the Labour Court concluded that the charges of misconduct are not established 1 2013 (10) SCC 324 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 and the Labour Court has set aside the award and held that the claimant is not entitled to backwages and continuity of service. 8. The Labour Court held the claimant has not led any evidence to show that he has not worked elsewhere after the termination. It is noticed from the examination-in-chief that the petitioner has made a categorical statement that he is not gainfully employed when the evidence was led. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Labour court erred in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages and continuity of service. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that on 23.02.2011, (after the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the impugned award) petitioner was removed from employment post disciplinary enquiry. Hence, there is no question of awarding any back wages after 23.02.2011. 10. Nevertheless, petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal from service i.e. from 19.10.1999, till 23.02.2011 on which date he was removed from service after reinstatement. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 11. Petitioner is also entitled to the benefits flowing from award confirming continuity of service from the date of his appointment till the date of termination as per law. In case back wages and other benefits flowing from this award is not paid to the petitioner within 45 days from today, petitioner is entitled to proceed further under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if such proceeding is initiated, the Labour Court shall follow the procedure laid down by this Court in K.M.GURUSHIVAKUMAR vs LIC OF INDIA and Another2 to narrow down the scope of enquiry namely: (a) Ascertain as to whether the respondent has raised a plea of compliance of the award or settlement and if so, whether materials are placed to accept the plea of compliance of the terms of the award or settlement. (b) If no such plea of compliance of the award or settlement is raised, or even if such plea is raised and no material is placed to accept such a plea relating to compliance, then the Tribunal or the Labour Court may direct the 2 W.P.No. 15186/2023 disposed on 14.07.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 respondent bound by the award or settlement to come out with the calculation of the monetary benefits payable in terms of award or settlement, along with supporting documents justifying such calculations. (c) Once such calculation is furnished along with supporting documents, and if the petitioner agrees with such calculation, then the Tribunal or the Labour Court shall fix the date for payment and close the proceeding, if no other claim is made. (d) If the petitioner does not agree with the calculation submitted by the respondent and claims higher monetary benefit, then the dispute should be adjudicated only in respect of difference claimed and the Tribunal or the Labour Court shall direct the respondent by way of interim measure, to pay the undisputed monetary benefits within such time to be fixed (before closure of the proceeding) having regard to the facts of the case. (e) After ascertaining the undisputed claim, the Tribunal or the Labour Court in appropriate cases, may also direct - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15340 WP No. 63976 of 2011 compliance/satisfaction of such undisputed claim by way interim measure as a condition precedent to contest the disputed claim and thereafter, has to pass appropriate orders on the disputed claim. (f) In all proceedings under Section 33C(2) of Act of 1947, it may not be necessary to conduct a trial, and wherever the dispute can be adjudicated based on undisputed documentary evidence, the Tribunal or Labour Court shall endeavour to decide the application without holding a trial. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, awarding back wages in favour of the petitioner against the respondent as held above. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4