- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 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. 68087 OF 2010 (L-TER) BETWEEN: ASHOK S/O CHANNAPPA KUMBAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC. NIL, RESIDING AT MATAGAL, AT AND POST: KAKTI, DIST: BELGAUM. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF GOGTE TEXTILES LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-G FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI AND THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED IN I.D. NO.425/2003 BY INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI (WHICH IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G) DATED: 30/09/2009 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 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 assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of which the petitioner's reference is rejected. The workman is before this Court challenging the award dismissing the reference. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is found guilty of unauthorised absence from 08.01.2001. 4. The establishment issued notice on 06.02.2001 to hold disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner for unauthorised absence. Petitioner contested the charges and the enquiry officer found petitioner guilty of unauthorised absence from 08.01.2001 till the date of dismissal from employment. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 5. It is urged that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorised absence till the date of dismissal from employment is erroneous. It is his submission that petitioner was under suspension w.e.f. 06.02.2011, petitioner was not required to attend to duty. In addition, it is also urged that enquiry was not properly conducted and assuming that petitioner was unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 08.01.2011 to 06.02.2001, the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and said to have been proved. 6. Learned counsel would further submit that the Labour Court committed an error in not exercising jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the premise that the respondent-establishment is closed. 7. It is urged that the compensation should have been awarded and the amount could have been recovered from the assets of the respondent-Company, and not awarding compensation on the premise that company is closed in erroneous. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Company would urge that the establishment is closed and Tribunal is justified in not awarding any compensation. It is his further submission that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty and the misconduct alleged and the Tribunal has also recorded the same finding and the finding is based on the materials available on record and there is no scope to interfere with the said finding in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. It is also his further submission that the petitioner was not under suspension during the domestic enquiry and during enquiry he has not attended duty and there was no prohibition for him to attend to duty. Thus, the Enquiry Officer is justified in holding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 08.01.2001 till the date of termination. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 11. Though learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f.06.02.2001 till the date of termination from employment, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 the order placing petitioner under suspension is not produced. Both the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court based on evidence have concluded that petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent. 12. It is not the case of the petitioner that he moved an application seeking leave and same was rejected without any justification or he could not attend to the duty on account of unavoidable circumstances. No such circumstance is brought out. 13. That being the position, it is a case of unauthorised absence for a period of more than one year. In these circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from employment is passed. The Labour Court has concluded that there is no scope to award any reinstatement as the respondent-establishment is closed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner though would urge that the Labour Court could have awarded compensation as the Company was closed 5 years after his dismissal and the remaining employees were provided compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14058 WP No. 68087 of 2010 15. If the establishment was closed five years after the order of dismissal, it is not possible to accept the contention that the petitioner was victimized with an intention to reduce the workforce as there was no such plea in the claim statement. 16. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court 17. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE brn-CT:BCK