- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. K.C.SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA, RESIDING AT NO.12/1, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, KEMPAPUR EXTENSION, HEBBAL KEMPAPURA, BANGALORE-560 024. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. THE OBEROI, NO.39, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, BY ITS DIRECTOR – HRD, SRI. RAJNEESH SHARMA …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-4042/2013 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF 50 PERCENT OF BACK WAGES AND SO ALSO - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 FOR RECOVERY OF 17B WAGES PAID TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF 50 PERCENT OF BACK WAGES, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY 50 PERCENT OF BACK WAGES WITHOUT RECOVERY OF 17B BACK WAGES PAID AND WITH ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS TO THE APPELLANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH & HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/management against the judgment and order dated 14.03.2025 passed in W.P. No. 4042 of 2013, which was preferred by the respondent/workman. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 3. The respondent/workman was employed with the petitioner/management since 1992. An altercation took place between the workman and another employee on 26.07.2004. The other employee lodged a grievance against the workman, pursuant to which a warning letter was issued to the respondent/workman to mend his behavior. 4. It appears that the respondent/workman had tendered his resignation on 03.02.2004, which was accepted by the management on the same date. The workman, however, contended that his resignation was obtained forcibly and not tendered voluntarily. Therefore, he challenged the order dated 03.02.2004, leading to the institution of Industrial Dispute No. 9 of 2004 before the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. 5. By an award dated 13.08.2012, the Labour Court set aside the order accepting the workman's resignation and directed his reinstatement with full back - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 wages. This award was challenged by the management by filing W.P. No. 4042 of 2013. 6. The learned Single Judge, having considered the relevant case law on the grant of back wages, took the view that awarding 50% back wages would meet the ends of justice. It was further directed that the amount already paid under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would be deducted from this 50%. 7. On 12.11.2025, this Court passed the following order: The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court for consideration the following judgments: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal1 Sivanand Mahato v. State of Bihar2 and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya3. 8. We have perused all these judgments. However, none of them holds that the necessary consequence of setting aside a termination order is the 1 (2017) 2 SCC 433 2 (2013) 11 SCC 626 3 (2013) 10 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 reinstatement of the workman with full back wages. In fact, in cases where the Tribunal granted full back wages along with reinstatement, the Supreme Court has often reduced the back wages to 50% or 75%. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant now states that the wages paid under Section 17B, in the event of reinstatement with 50% back wages, are to be deducted therefrom. Therefore, he does not press this second issue. 10. As regards the general principle of reinstatement with back wages, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some material was placed by the employer to show that the workman was running his own restaurant during the relevant period. Though the actual income from the restaurant was not ascertained, considering the fact that the respondent/workman was not unemployed, the learned Single Judge rightly reduced the back wages to 50%. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48383-DB WA No. 932 of 2025 direction that the wages paid under Section 17B shall be deducted from this amount is also proper. 11. In these circumstances, in view of the settled law in this behalf we do not find that the respondent/workman is entitled to full back wages. Consequently, we find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge that requires correction by this Court. 12. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (D K SINGH) JUDGE (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA