Sri. M S Manjunath Vs M/S West Coast Optlinks

SRI. M.S.MANJUNATH S/O SRI. SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO 546/2, OIL MILLS STREET, 7^TH CROSS, VEENE SESHANNA ROAD, K.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU-570 004.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. NAIK.V.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

M/S. WEST COAST OPTLINKS, FORMERLY SUDARSHAN TELECOM, PLOT NOS. 386/387, KIADB, ELECTRONIC CITY, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSURU-570 016. REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT (O).

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 05.11.2024 IN WP No. 28450/2018 (L-TER) AND ALLOW THE WP No-28450/2018 (L-TER) AND ETC.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶23

& HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellant/workman judgment and order dated 05.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.28450/2018 c/w

¶27

WP.No.23638/2018.

¶28

The appellant/workman was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the respondent/employer and on conclusion of the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of termination from service. The learned Labour Court passed the award dated 31.05.2017 in the I.I.D.No.10/2012 filed by the appellant/workmen under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal was of the opinion, after having considered the evidence laid by the parties and submissions advanced,

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

that the punishment awarded to the appellant/workman was unjustified and therefore set aside the punishment of dismissal of termination from service and directed the appellant/workman reinstatement with 25% back wages from the date of dismissal till the award.

¶32

The petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.09.2011. As stated above, award came to be passed on 31.05.2017. The Labor Court has also noticed that in the conciliation proceedings, it was agreed between the parties

¶33

that the workmen concerned and union would extend wholehearted cooperation for the improvement of industrial relations in the factory and the management would not take any action unlawfully who were served with notices during the strike period. The workman concerned and the Union should co-operate in completing the enquiry.

¶34

Against the said award passed by the Labour Court the two writ petitions came to be filed one by the workman and another by the Management, being

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

WP.No.28450/2018 and WP.No.23638/2018. The Learned Single Judge has decided both the writ petitions together by the impugned, common judgment and order and has upheld the award. The learned Single Judge has said that the interference in the award would be called for only when there is a perversity or the Labour Court has passed the award which is otherwise illegal that is the award is based on no evidence. It is held that, in exercise of writ jurisdiction in Articles 226 and 227, the Court only considered these aspects and will not re-evaluate the evidence and thus both the writ petitions came to be dismissed and the award was upheld by the impugned judgment and award.

¶39

Learned counsel for the appellant/workman submits that once the Labour Court found the punishment awarded to him in the disciplinary proceedings as illegal, the natural corollary of setting aside the punishment would have been to reinstatement with full back wages. However instead of awarding the full back wages the Labour Court

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

has directed for payment of 25% by wages that to be calculated on loss terms.

¶43

It is further submitted that the respondentmanagement obtained the interim order from this Court and they did not allow the appellant/workmen to join the

¶44

service back and instead they paid 17-B wages. The submission is that when the management did not allow the workman to join despite the punishment having been set aside, the workman would be entitled for full back wages at least from the date of award till he attain the age of superannuation i.e., 26.11.2021. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondentmanagement submits that the workman/appellant had led the strike though he was not even president of the Workers Union the strike continued for a period of 45 days for no rhyme and reasons and the respondent-Company had suffered huge losses i.e., Rs.4.5 Crores. The misconduct committed by the workman, who was not even the president of the Union, would not entitle him for the

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

back wages and the 25% back wages awarded by the Industrial Labour Court upheld by the learned Single Judge are fully justified and no interference is required, we have considered the same issue, once the management failed to establish the validity of the punishment imposed on the workmen and the Labour Court having set aside the punishment of removal from service, the management cannot rely on the said misconduct was not proved before the Labor Court which resulted in setting aside the order of punishment.

¶49

Instead of complying the award passed by the labor Court, the management came before this Court and filed writ petition and obtained interim order. During the pendency of the writ petition, the workman/appellant was paid 17-B wages.

¶50

If the punishment was set aside and the workman was not allowed to join back the service, the workman would be entitled to back wages if it is not proved that he was gainfully employed during this period.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The question which calls for consideration in

¶54

this case is whether the 25% back wages awarded by the Labour Court, that too on last terms salary of the appellant/workman is justified or it requires some enhancement by this Court.

¶55

It is well settled proposition of law that if order of termination is found to be illegal, the nature of consequences would be restatement with back wages unless there are some special circumstances which would not warrant reinstatement and back wages. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the workers went on strike for a long period i.e., 45 days which resulted is huge losses to the company.

¶56

The setting aside the termination order inflicted on the appellant/workman would not wipe out the long strike by the workers which was the strike was led by the petitioner which resulted in huge losses to the respondent-

¶57

Company. Therefore, in the special facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

appellant/workmen should be paid at least 50% back wages with continuity of service, so thus we dispose of this appeal directing the respondent-Company to calculate and pay the back wages of 50% of the appellant/workman on the salary which he would drawn on the date of passing of the award. The Labor Court itself has directed for consequential benefit that is a continuity of service etc. The workmen should also be paid a gratituty for the period when he was in employment. We therefore, dispose of the appeal with following directions:

¶61

ORDER

¶62

i. The workmen shall be paid back wages to an extent of 50% on the salary which he would have been given on the date of the award by the Labour Court.

¶63

ii. He shall also be entitled for the gratituty as his reinstatement was ordered with continuity of service in all consequential benefits.

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:44970-DB WA No. 1864 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

iii. The employer are the respondent shall be

¶68

entitled to deduct the wages paid under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, while paying the 50% back wages as directed by aforesaid direction.

¶69

iv. We dispose of this appeal.

¶70

v. The management is directed to pay back wages including gratuity and all the other terminal benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶71

Digitally signed by DINESH KUMAR SINGH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

¶72

(D K SINGH)

¶73

JUDGE

¶74

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

¶75

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶76

TIN CT-DB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. M S Manjunath v. M/S West Coast Optlinks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M S Manjunath v. M/S West Coast Optlinks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt N Veena Vs K E Sandeep

Smt Mary Fernandes Vs Mr Marcel Fernandes

Sri B Jayaram Vs G M S Constructions Private Limited

The Government of India Vs Smt. M K Pravanakshi

V. U. Shankar Vs Syndicate Bank

N N Mahadeva Vs the Divisional Controller