The Divisional Manager Vs Murugayya — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

The Divisional Manager Vs Murugayya — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part: the impugned award dated 22/04/2019 in I.D.R. No.24/2015 is modified — the workman is denied wages from the date of dismissal to 19.07.2019, while retaining continuity of service for retirement benefits and other consequential benefits except backwages; the Labour Court's direction of reinstatement is otherwise left undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court's award setting aside the dismissal and directing reinstatement without backwages — despite recording that the misconduct of theft was proved — exceeded the permissible scope of interference under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether that discretionary exercise could be corrected in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

Court's answer

Although the misconduct of theft stood established, the Labour Court's exercise of discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — directing reinstatement and denying complete backwages in a case of first misconduct, where the rubber (subject matter of the theft) was found in the employer's own premises and the workman was on the verge of retirement — is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Ratio / Principle

Since the finding that the workman is guilty of misconduct was not questioned in the manner known to law, the workman (styled 'petitioner' in the operative clauses) is not entitled to any wages from the date of dismissal to 19.07.2019; the Court's reasoning records that no wages are payable from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.

Key takeaways

The workman is entitled to continuity of service to claim retirement benefits and other consequential benefits, except backwages, continuity not having been specifically denied in the impugned award.ratio¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 11-A — interference under Article 227 — dismissal for theft of sixteen kilograms of rubber — misconduct held proved, but the rubber was found in the employer's own premises; it was the workman's first proven misconduct and he was on the verge of retirement — Labour Court set aside the dismissal dated 16.10.2015 and directed reinstatement without backwages — High Court (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.) declined to interfere with the Section 11-A discretion in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction; however, since the finding of guilt was not questioned, the workman was held not entitled to any wages from the date of dismissal to 19.07.2019 (reasoning: no wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement), while continuity of service for retirement benefits and other consequential benefits, except backwages, was preserved — writ petition allowed in part; award modified. (WP No. 50641 of 2019 (L-RES); decided 03.07.2025)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 50641 OF 2019 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SUBRAMANYA RUBBER DIVISION, CHIKKAMUDNUR POST, PUTTUR-574 203.

…PETITIONER

(BY MS. ANANYA RAI, ADVOCATE SRI MURUGESH V CHARATI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

MURUGAYYA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O. KITNAN,R/AT C.R.C. BALPA, YENEKALLU, SUBRAHMANYA, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574203.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SMT SHEELA KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2019 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN IDR.NO.24/2015 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 22.4.2019 in I.D.No.24/2015 on the file of the Labour Court, Mangaluru.

There is no dispute relating to the relationship between the parties. Petitioner is the employer and respondent is the workman.

In terms of the impugned award, penalty of dismissal dated 16.10.2015 is set-aside. Petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent/employee without backwages.

The employer is before this Court on the premise that the misconduct of theft alleged against the workman is duly established and having recorded a finding that the theft is duly established which is a major offence. The Labour Court could not have interfered with the penalty imposed by the employer and the scope of interference is limited and no case is made out in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947').

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

Learned counsel appearing for the respondentworkman on the other hand would submit that though the workman has not challenged the award as he was directed to be reinstated, it is her contention that the alleged misconduct is not established. Sixteen kilograms of Rubber, the object of theft allegedly committed by the respondent were not found in his possession and was found in the premises of the employer itself. This being the position, the findings of the Labour Court that the misconduct is proved is without any basis. However given the fact that there is an order of reinstatement, the respondent has not chosen to question the said award and it is further submitted that the Labour Court exercised the discretion in favour of the workman and it is not the case of the petitioner/employer that the workman was found guilty of misconduct earlier to this incident and taking note of this factor, the Labour Court has exercised the discretion under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is not capable of being further corrected in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in DIVISIONAL

CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORAITON vs M.G.VITTAL RAO¹ .

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent

relied on the following judgments:

(i) JITENTDRA SINGH RATHOR vs SHRIBAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN LTD. & ANR.²

(ii) COAL INDIA LTD. & ANR. vs MUKUL KUMAR CHOUDHARI & ORS³

(iii) KRUSHNAKANT B PARMAR vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.⁴

(iv) KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED vs S KIRAN⁵

The petitioner was aged 49 years in 2015. Now

he is on the verge of retirement. Though, it is established

that the alleged misconduct of theft is proved, it is also

1 2012(1) SCC 442

2 1984 SCC(3) 5

3 Civil Appeal Nos.5762-5763/2009

4 Civil Appeal No.2106/2012

5 Writ Appeal No.217/2023

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

noticed that Rubber which is said to be the subject matter of theft was in the premises of the petitioner-employer. It is true that the workman has not challenged the award which has found that he is guilty of misconduct. The fact that there was no other proven misconduct alleged against the respondent is not in dispute. Noticing the fact that this is a case of first misconduct against the respondent, the Labour Court has exercised the discretion under Section 11-A of Act of 1947, denied complete backwages.

Under the circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement, this Court in exercise of Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing reinstatement.

However, it is required to be noticed that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. It is also noticed that the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to order dated 19.07.2019. The impugned award is passed on

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

22.04.2019. The petitioner did not work from 22.04.2019

to 19.07.2019. Since, petitioner is found guilty of misconduct which finding is not questioned in the manner known to law, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any wages from the date of the award till

the date of reinstatement.

However, it is made clear that petitioner is entitled to continuity of service to claim retirement benefits as same is not specifically denied in the impugned award.

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed-in-part .

The impugned award dated 22/04/2019 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in I.D.R. No.24/2015 is modified.

The petitioner is not entitled to any wages from the date of dismissal to 19.07.2019.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23924 WP No. 50641 of 2019

HC-KAR

Petitioner is entitled to continuity of service to

claim retirement benefits and other consequential benefits

except backwages.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45