Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs Mr. Sridhara

MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED SOLAR BUSINESS DIVISION, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ELECTRO PORCELAIN DIVISION) P B NO. 1245, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE 560 012

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AND HEAD NOW MR. G A SARAVANAN.

¶14

Digitally signed by …APPELLANT MADHUSHREE H (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N S., ADVOCATE) Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

¶15

MR. SRIDHARA S/O HEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. G-108 SAHAKARA NAGARA, BANGALORE- 560 092. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KRISHNA MOORTHY.D., ADVOCATE FOR CAV/R)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.41596/2011 TO THE EXTENT OF GRANTING OF THE RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT TO THE RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 24.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.41596/2011 by the respondent-workman.

¶24

The respondent-workman faced the domestic inquiry. The inquiry officer found the charges proved and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent - workman vide order dated 10.12.1999. This order of dismissal from service came to be challenged by the respondent - workman in I.D. No.61/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. The Tribunal found that the order of punishment of dismissal from service was

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

illegal. However, the tribunal considering the fact that the petitioner was gainfully employed, his wife has a solar agency in her name and the petitioner has been working there, instead of order for reinstatement, back wages and other claims awarded, a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the workman. The respondent-workman being aggrieved by the said award, dated 21.06.2011 passed in ID No.61/2000 filed the writ petition No.41596/2011/. The learned Single Judge having considered the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Institute Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') was of the view that under Section 11 of the Act, the power of the Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court for modifying the punishment of dismissal are under following heads:

¶28

(i) Reinstatement.

¶29

(ii) any lesser punishment.

¶30

(iii) compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

¶31

(iv) Award passed under Section 11A of the Act.

¶32

The Labour Court having held the dismissal wrongful and invalid, the normal relief of reinstatement without condition or giving such relief to the workman including the

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

award of lesser punishment in lieu of order of dismissal could have been granted. The Labour Court instead of reinstatement had only granted Rs.5,00,000/- compensation though found the punishment of dismissal from service as wrongful and invalid. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the award and modified the award with the direction for restatement of the respondent-workman without back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/ordered by the Labour Court, however, was confirmed, which would be towards terminal benefits. Thus, the learned single judge has ordered the reinstatement without back wages and without continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

¶36

The learned counsel for the appellant / management submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. The Industrial Tribunal having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the gainful employment of the petitioner, as his wife is running a solar panel agency, was of the view that instead of reinstatement and other reliefs a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice, therefore the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

award should not have been interfered with. He therefore submits that the impugned judgment and order requires to be interfered with.

¶40

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent -workmen submits that once the tribunal found the dismissal illegal, the natural corollary would have been to reinstate the workman with or without wages depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. He therefore submits that he is not pressing for the back wages, but so far as the relief of reinstatement is concerned, the learned Single Judge has rightly granted such relief to the workman which requires no interference.

¶41

We have considered the rival submissions. It is not seriously disputed that the petitioner was gainfully employed during the period when he was out of employment. Therefore, the question of back wages does not arise. However, once the Industrial Tribunal has found the order of dismissal illegal, the natural consequence would be that he should have been ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages. Therefore, so far as the order of restatement is concerned as

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

directed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find that it requires an interference. So far as the order of confirmation of payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the workman is concerned, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is required to be interfered with as the workman would not be entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, which was awarded towards the reinstatement, back wages etc. Once the learned Single Judge has ordered for restatement, the said amount should have been directed to be refunded to the management. Thus, we modify the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and direct the management to pay the salary to the respondent - workman of the post, which he was holding on the date of the his dismissal from service, and pay him salary from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge till he attained the age of retirement. The appellant - management shall be entitled to deduct the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- paid to the respondent- workman and balance amount is directed to be paid to the workman within period of 6 weeks. If the management pays the balance amount to the petitioner after deducting Rs.5,00,000/- which is already paid due to him i.e., his salary from the date of the judgment of the learned Single

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:44317-DB WA No. 602 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Judge till he attained the age of superannuation, no interest shall be payable. However if the amount is not paid within period of 6 weeks, the respondent- workman shall be entitled for interest on the said sum as directed above at the rate of

¶49

10% per annum.

¶50

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶53

SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mr. Sridhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mr. Sridhara

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

C.S. Dinakar Vs Ramachandraiah

The Commissioner Vs Baljeet Singh

Sri Rajasekhara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagappa Vs the Bengaluru Development Authority

Lingaraju K @ Raju K Vs United India Ins Co. Ltd.

Sri Shiraz Vs the Managing Director