- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52354-DB WA No. 1818 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 1818 OF 2024 (L-TER) BETWEEN: 1. SRI K VENKATESH S/O KARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT 35, 1ST CROSS, CHOWDESHWARI NAGAR POLICE CHOWKI, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560058 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAJ WEST END HOTEL RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AREA DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S N MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ROOPASRI S, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT) - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52354-DB WA No. 1818 of 2024 WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN WP No-1474/2020 DATED 28.10.2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP BY RESTORING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT BANGALORE IN ID No-22/2016 DATED 30.09.2019 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1474/2020 instituted by the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the petition for the sake of convenience. 3. The respondent - workman was employed as Chef in the petitioner management, a Star Hotel of THCL in Bengaluru. The respondent - workman was dismissed from service by the management after holding a domestic enquiry with respect to an incident dated 03.10.2015 wherein one litre Safal Oil (cooking oil) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52354-DB WA No. 1818 of 2024 sachet was found in the pouch over the oil tank of the two wheeler of the respondent. In the domestic enquiry the charge was found proved and therefore, the disciplinary authority inflicted the major punishment on the respondent, dismissing him from service. 4. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the respondent - workman raised the Industrial Dispute in ID No.22/2016 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru. The Labour Court vide the award dated 30.09.2019 allowed the claim of the respondent - workman and set aside the order of dismissal from service, finding it to be illegal, unjust and arbitrary and directed the management to reinstate the workman back into service within 30 days from the date of the publication with continuity of service with full back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 5. The aforesaid award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court came to be challenged in the writ petition by the petitioner - management in W.P.No.1474/2020. The learned Single Judge has held that during the domestic enquiry, the charge against the respondent - workman was proved and there was no perversity or any error apparent on the face of the record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52354-DB WA No. 1818 of 2024 6. Learned Single Judge has held that the leaned Labour Court had wrongly concluded that the charge was not proved on the evidence lead by the parties. The Labour Court had committed an error in holding as the management did not file any complaint in the police station, the charge would not stand proved. It is not mandatory for the management to file FIR in each and every case. In the domestic enquiry which was held in accordance with the procedure as contemplated, charges were found proved, the Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment, and thus the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the award passed by the Labour Court. 7. The respondent - workman had worked for around 23 long years with the petitioner management with unblemished record. There was no other enquiry ever held during his long career as Chef in the petitioner hotel. No other punishment was ever awarded to him. The charge against the respondent - workman is though serious, but the subject matter of the charge is very trivial i.e., one litre Safal (cooking) oil. We though concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, but considering the fact that the respondent - workman had put in long years of service with the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52354-DB WA No. 1818 of 2024 petitioner - hotel i.e., 23 years, and his career has been unblemished before the present charge was levied against him, instead of going into the merits, with the consent of the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner management to pay a lump sum amount of `.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) towards full and final settlement of the respondent - workman's claim etc., We have also been informed that around 19 lakhs has been paid to the respondent - workman as wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Thus, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the petitioner's management to pay a further sum of `.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakh only) to the respondent - workman within a period of two weeks from today towards his full and final settlement of his dues except for gratuity and earned leave. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA