- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10940 WP No. 67388 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 67388 OF 2011 (L-ESI) BETWEEN: SRI. SUNDARAO S/O. SHIKHAMANI JAKKAM, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. GOKUL ROAD, AKSHAY PARK, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R.K. HATTI & SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT M/S. WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD., DANDELI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, NO.5, BANGUR NAGAR, DANDELI, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI IN REF.NO.29/2007 DATED 07-05-2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10940 WP No. 67388 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the workman calling in question the award dated 7.5.2010 passed in Ref.No.29/2007 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1, whereunder the reference made by the workman was rejected. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the workman was employed with the respondent – Management as a Broke Boy in the House Department from 1.4.1997. On the ground that he was habitually, unauthorizedly absent, he was issued with the charge sheet dated 8.4.2005, to which the workman submitted explanation. After completion of the enquiry, the workman attended his duties till November 2005 and the Management did not contemplate any further disciplinary action in respect of the charge sheet dated 8.4.2005. The workman is stated to have tendered his resignation on 9.12.2005 to the Factory Manager of the Management and 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Labour Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10940 WP No. 67388 of 2011 requested that he be relieved from his services with immediate effect and accordingly, he was relieved from service on 10.12.2005. 3. At the instance of the workman, a reference was made under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, which was referred for adjudication. The workman did not file claim statement inspite of number of opportunities having been provided. The Management submitted its counter statement. The workman did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Management examined MW.1. Exs.M1 and M2 were marked on behalf of the Management. By award dated 7.5.2010 the reference was rejected. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Even in the present petition, the petitioner/workman has not stated as to the reason for non- filing of the claim statement before the Labour Court and non examining himself before the Labour Court. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ID Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10940 WP No. 67388 of 2011 5. The Labour Court, while appreciating the material on record, has noticed the letter of resignation Ex.M1, wherein it was stated that due to personal reasons the workman was tendering his resignation. Further, the Labour Court has recorded the following findings: “11. In the absence of explaining any other circumstances under which the claimant signed the blank paper, which is being alleged to have been misused by the respondent- management is not explained by the claimant-workman. Thereby the say of the claimant-workman that the respondent-management misused the signed blank paper and treated same as resignation letter can not be accepted. Thereby the claimant-workman failed in his attempt to establish issue no.1, on the other hand respondent- management accepted the resignation letter marked as Ex.M.1, thereby claimant failed to prove this issue, thereby issue no.1 is answered in the negative. “ 6. Even in the present petition, the petitioner has not explained the reason as to why the resignation letter is sought to be impugned as also the reason as to why he did - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10940 WP No. 67388 of 2011 not file the claim statement or adduce evidence before the Labour Court. 7. In view of the aforementioned, the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16