Partly allowed

The Management of Ksic Central Office v. Sri. H. M. Nagesh

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WA/404/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two cross-written appeals challenging a Single Judge order that reinstated a workman and awarded back wages. The Court held that reinstatement without a clean chit does not automatically mandate back wages. The direction for 40% back wages was set aside, while reinstation and continuity of service were left intact.

What did the court decide?

Direction to pay 40% of back wages set at naught; reinstatement with continuity of service left intact.

The Management of Ksic Central Office Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2022 (L-TER)

¶10

C/W

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO. 425 OF 2022 (L-TER)

¶12

IN W.A.NO.404/2022:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

THE MANAGEMENT OF KSIC CENTRAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSIC SILK WEAVING FACTORY, MANDNAWADI ROAD, MYSORE – 570 008.

¶17

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY SATISH KUMAR, GENERAL MANAGER (P) (I/C) KSIC LTD., HEAD OFFICE, 3^RD AND 4^TH FLOOR, PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

(BY SRI. T P MUTHANNA.,ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶21

AND:

¶22

SRI. H. M. NAGESH, S/O. SRI. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2656, 3^RD CROSS, K.G. KOPPAL, MYSORE.

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SRI.V S NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

¶25

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 36902/2022 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 36902/2011 (L-TER) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.,

¶26

IN W.A.NO.425/2022:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

SRI. H M NAGESH, S/O SRI NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.2656, 3^RD CROSS, K G KOPPALU,MYSURU-570 005.

¶29

…APPELLANT

¶30

(BY SRI. V S NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE MANAGEMENT OF KSIC, CENTRAL OFFICE, M G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶33

THE GENERAL MANAGER, KSIC SILK WEAVING FACTORY, MANDNAWADI ROAD, MYSURU-570 008.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI.T P MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶36

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶37

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 07.03.2022 IN WP No-36902/2011 (L-TER) TO THE EXTENT THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION No-36902/2011 (L-TER) IN ITS ENTIRETY BY GRANTING FULL BACK WAGES TO THE APPELLANT AND ETC.,

¶38

THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The appeal in W.A.No.404/2022 is by the Management and the companion Appeal in W.A.No.425/2022 is by the workman. These two

¶41

appeals seek to lay a challenge to a learned Single Judge’s order dated 07.03.2022 in workman’s W.P.No.36902/2011 (L-TER) wherein Labour Court Award dated 01.12.2010 was impugned. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

¶42

a) For the unauthorised absence, the petitioner is imposed with penalty of withholding 3 annual increments.

¶43

b) The respondent shall reinstate the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with continuity of service and 40% of backwages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement.”

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶45

Shorn off the thickness of the appeal books, the matter lies in a narrow compass: The award of the Labour Court made presumably under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is modified by the Writ Court, as already indicated above, under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. In such a circumstance, Court is not recording a finding to give a clean chit to the workman. Apparently, the penalty is reduced to the imposition of 3 annual increments and the workman is directed to be reinstated. If that be so, we fail to understand how the direction for payment of back wages could be issued. This view gains support from a catena of rulings in the realm of Industrial Law.

¶46

The Apex Court in more or less a similar fact matrix in OM PAL SINGH vs DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, (2020) 3 SCC 103 at paragraphs 11 and 12 has observed as under:

¶47

“11. In J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal & Anr., (2007) 2 SCC 433, this Court dealt with the issue regarding the entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in all cases of reinstatement as follows:

¶48

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶49

“17. There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, 'continuity of service' and 'consequential benefits' should follow, as a matter of course. The disastrous effect of granting several promotions as a 'consequential benefit' to a person who has not worked for 10 to 15 years and who does not have the benefit of necessary experience for discharging the 6 (2007) 2 SCC 433 8 | Page higher duties and functions of promotional posts, is seldom visualized while granting consequential benefits automatically. Whenever courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether 'continuity of service' and/or 'consequential benefits' should also be directed. We may in this behalf refer to the decisions of this Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narasa Goud [2003 (2) SCC 212], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Abdul Kareem [2005 (6) SCC 36] and R.S.R.T.C. v. Shyam Bihari Lal Gupta [2005 (7) SCC 406].”

¶50

12. It was further held in the said judgment that if reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back-wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. This Court went on to hold that where the misconduct was held to be proved, reinstatement by itself is a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment. However, this Court was of the opinion that award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action against the misconduct committed by the employee, which should be avoided.”

¶51

There is yet another reason why we are inclined

¶52

to grant indulgence in the appeal of the Management and decline interference in that of the Workman: the learned

¶53

counsel appearing for the Management with appreciable fairness submits that the Workman would be reinstated in

¶54

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40517-DB WA No. 404 of 2022 C/W WA No. 425 of 2022

¶55

service within four weeks, of course without any

¶56

backwages. However, that has to be with only the continuity of service.

¶57

In the above circumstances, the Management’s W.A.No.404/2022 (L-TER) is partly favoured and the direction to pay 40% of backwages is set at naught; however, rest of the directions are left intact. The Workman’s W.A.No.425/2022 (L-TER) is dismissed, as being devoid of merits.

Costs made easy.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Snb/

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The Management of Ksic Central Office v. Sri. H. M. Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Management of Ksic Central Office v. Sri. H. M. Nagesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

High Court of Karnataka Vs Smt Mary Cyriac

Sri. Diwakar J Vs Sri. Anand v Gangur

Rangaswamy. B. T. Vs Union of India

Manjunath Murthy Vs Mr Raghunandan a N

Sri.Jaganatha Shetty Vs Chief Executive Officer

Dr Jagadeesh S Sanganal Vs the State of Karnataka