- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9908 OF 2019 (L-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SHRI KAMAKSHI SAREES, NO.14, NR COMPLEX, LAXMAN RAO ROAD, HURIOPET, BENGALURU-560 053. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. PRASHANTH SHANUBHOG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RATHNAKARA, S/O. PAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE BENGALURU ENGINEERING & GENERAL WORKERS UNION, NO.874, 6TH MAIN,2ND CROSS, JNANA JYOTHINAGAR, JNANABHARATHI, BENGALURU-560 056. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. C.N.KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Manjunatha.B., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. When the matter is called, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. The petition was listed on 29.06.2026 and 07.07.2026; on these days, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass orders on the merits of the case. 2. The short facts are these: The petitioner is a small establishment engaged in the business of selling sarees. The respondent was employed in the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 petitioner’s showroom as a salesperson. It is stated that on 14.05.2015, he collected an advance sum of ₹45,000/-, and on 27.05.2015, a further sum of ₹10,000/-. Further, he did not credit the amount collected from the customer. When questioned by the management, the respondent, for reasons best known to him, abruptly absented himself from duty from 03.06.2015. Upon enquiry, the petitioner discovered that the respondent was in the process of establishing his own business. In 2015, the respondent commenced operations under the name and style of M/s. Jwalamala Enterprises subsequently registered the firm and obtained VAT certification and other statutory licenses. The respondent thereafter raised a dispute before the Labor Inspector alleging refusal of employment. The petitioner submitted that at no point was employment refused, and that the respondent was always at liberty to resume duty. Nevertheless, without reporting back to work, the respondent obtained an endorsement from the Labor Inspector and initiated proceedings before the Labor Court under Section - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner filed a counterstatement opposing the claim and adduced evidence. By an award dated 27.10.2018, the Labor Court allowed the claim, holding that the refusal of employment by the petitioner was illegal and liable to be set aside. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition, assailing the award on several grounds outlined in the memorandum of petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. He strenuously argued that at no point in time was there any refusal of employment to the respondent. On the contrary, it was the respondent who voluntarily abandoned his employment and proceeded to establish his own independent business. Despite this fact, the petitioner remained willing to permit the respondent to resume duty. However, the respondent did not avail himself of such an opportunity. Counsel further argued that the Labor Court failed to properly consider these aspects of the case and mistakenly - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 assumed there was a refusal of employment, which led to the approval of the claim petition. Citing other grounds mentioned in the writ petition, counsel requested that the award dated 27.10.2018 be set aside. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care. 5. This case arises out of a simple dispute concerning a saree salesman who alleged refusal of employment. The respondent was employed as a salesman, for reasons best known to him, abandoned his duty. Nevertheless, he alleged refusal of employment and approached the Labor Court seeking redressal of his grievance. It is specifically noted that the respondent admitted, in the course of proceedings, that the petitioner had asked him to resume duty, but he failed to report for work. This fact was also recorded by the Labor Court. Despite such an admission, the Labor Court erroneously proceeded to conclude that there was a refusal of employment and directed reinstatement. Such a finding is untenable. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 It is further pivotal to observe that the respondent had commenced his own independent business, a fact acknowledged by the Labor Court itself at paragraph No.15 of the award. In view of the respondent’s establishment of his own enterprise, there was no occasion for the Labor Court to assign the reason that there was a refusal of employment. The conclusion reached is therefore unsustainable. Furthermore, before this Court, an opportunity was also afforded for the respondent to resume duty. Despite such an opportunity, he failed to join. His conduct clearly demonstrates that he is no longer interested in continuing in the petitioner’s establishment, having already set up his own independent business. This circumstance reinforces the conclusion that the plea of refusal of employment is devoid of merit. 6. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010058462019 NC: 2026:KHC:36218 WP No. 9908 of 2019 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Labor Court, Bengaluru, in Ref. No.23/2016 is set aside. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted, if any, stands discharged and pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87