Sri M S Shashikumar Vs Labour Court

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 40217 OF 2012 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.S.SHASHIKUMAR, S/O. SRI. M.SUBRAMANYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, EX-EMPLOYEE OF M/S. PEERLITE LINERS PVT. LTD., WITH ROLL NO.132, R/AT PADMAVATHI NILAYA, NERA GANESH JYOTHISHYALAYA, KUMBARA GUNDI, SHIMOGA - 577202

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIVEK RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALORE – 575001. BY PRESIDING OFFICER.

¶15

M/S. PEERLITE LINERS PVT. LTD., N.T.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577202. REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶16

FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, M/S. PEERLITE LINERS PVT. LTD., N.T.ROAD, SHIMOGA – 577202.

¶17

SRI. S.K.PATIL, NO.20, 1-A, CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 570008.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.N.MURTHY ASSOCIATES FOR R2 & R3; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.07.2017, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Sri.Vivek Ravi Prakash, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Somashekar, counsel for respondents 2 and 3 have appeared through video conferencing.

¶28

Notice to the respondents was ordered. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.4 was held sufficient vide order dated:26.07.2017. They have neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶29

2. The petition averments are stated as under:

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The petitioner entered the services of the second respondent Company in 1990. He rendered unblemished service. In the course of time, he became a member of the Employees Association and was a protected employee. He became the Vice President of the Union. At one point in time, he had to be hard and stiff to protect the interests of the employees, which gave rise to the ground for the Management to think of victimization.

¶33

On 03.07.2008, there was a Bharath Bandh, and the Company did not declare a holiday in the first instance. At the instance of some volunteers, who insisted on a holiday, the Management was obliged to declare 03.07.2008 as a holiday with compensatory work on 06.07.2008. The petitioner received a letter on the 4^th of July 2008, and the management alleged that he was involved in a serious act of misconduct. Pending inquiry, he was placed under suspension. He was issued a charge memo with a show-cause notice. On furnishing a reply, the management issued an order for inquiry. The inquiry officer was appointed, and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The charges were held to be proved. The second

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, to which he replied. The explanation was not satisfactory; he was dismissed from service.

¶37

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner sought reference, and the Government referred the matter to the Labour Court, D.K., Mangalore (Camp at Shimoga) in I.D.No.07/2010 for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, counsel for the petitioner filed a memo and conceded the fairness of the Domestic inquiry. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide award dated 22.12.2011 dismissed the application. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶38

Counsel for the respective parties urged several

¶39

contentions.

¶40

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

1. V.S.SINGH V/S. DURG RAJNANDGAON GRAMIN

¶44

BANK AND ANOTHER reported in 2013 SCC ONLINE CHH 44.

¶45

2. BALU NAMDEVRAO MULE V/S. GENERAL MANAGER, BEST UNDERTAKING, reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE BOM 1933.

¶46

3. STATE OF MYSORE V/S. K. Manche Gowda reported in 1963 SCC ONLINE SC 50.

¶47

Counsel for the respondent submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the copy of the settlement dated:25.04.2005. Counsel, therefore, submits that the same may be placed on record.

¶48

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record.

¶49

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶50

The short point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

¶51

The facts are sufficiently said, and they do not require reiteration. There were two unions representing

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

employees in the company. The majority Union had 140 employees as its members. The petitioner was the Vice President of the minority Union, having a membership of 58 employees. In the present case, we are observing a noteworthy instance of a Minority Union vice president who has demonstrated indisciplined behavior.

¶55

The Vishwa Hindu Parishat observed a Bharat Bandh on 03.07.2008. Sensing the widespread mood for the Bharat Bandh, the management declared an unscheduled holiday on 03.07.2008 as a weekly rest day and asked the workmen to work on 06.07.2008, which happened to be the regular weekly rest day. The petitioner, being the Vice President of a minority Union, insisted that the Managing Director declare 03.07.2008

¶56

as an additional paid holiday and also demanded that the management should not insist that the workmen work on 06.07.2008.

¶57

Many arguments have been raised regarding the inquiry, and counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra to contend that the charge sheet was vague, did not disclose complete facts, and the petitioner had no

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

opportunity to meet the charges for want of a material document. This argument regarding the inquiry cannot be considered as the counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo and conceded the fairness of the Domestic inquiry, and accordingly, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was fair and proper. When the domestic inquiry is held as fair and proper, what is required to be considered is victimization and perversity. In the present case, there is no victimization and perversity. Furthermore, the Apex Court in many cases settled the law that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, the scope of judicial review is limited. In the present case, on the date of the Bharath Bandh,

¶61

it was observed that the petitioner, along with others, exhibited indiscipline leading to disruptions. During the Bharath Bandh, the petitioner showed indiscipline by demanding additional paid leave, not as a regular week off day. The act of indiscipline by the petitioner during the Bharath Bandh led to the breakdown of the order of protocol, and the Management noted a clear breach of protocol. The disciplinary authority took note of the material on record and rightly passed the order of dismissal. The Labor Court's decision to uphold the punishment order is

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:46966 WP No. 40217 of 2012

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

sound. In my view, the Labor Court was correct in confirming the punishment order.

¶66

Counsel for the petitioner has cited decisions relating to the domestic inquiry. As already noted above, in the present case, the petitioner has conceded to the fairness of the domestic inquiry. Hence, they do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶67

5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶68

Because of disposal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.

¶69

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶70

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Sri M S Shashikumar v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M S Shashikumar v. Labour Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M C Gangadhara Vs Sri. B. Kumara Swamy

Ramachandrappa Vs Renukamma

Sri M Srinivasa Vs Smt Sarojamma

N T Rahamathulla Khan Associates Vs the Labor Officer

Sri. C. C Dhanagonda Vs the Assistant General Manager

Sri Sriranga v Shanbhag Vs Regional / Employees Provident Fund Commissioner