Shri Puneet Wadhwa Vs the Management of — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Shri Puneet Wadhwa Vs the Management of — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part: denial of reinstatement upheld, but the Labour Court award is enhanced — respondent to pay a further Rs. 1,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of the award till payment, taking minimum overall compensation (including retrenchment compensation) to Rs. 3,00,000.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the prayer for reinstatement? +1 more

Court's answer

The Labour Court is justified in rejecting the prayer for reinstatement; the writ court upholds that part of the award.

Ratio / Principle

Basis for upholding denial of reinstatement: the petitioner gained employment immediately after the 05.03.2010 termination and later changed companies at higher pay packages, so he might not have lost much financially.

Key takeaways

The order of termination is indeed stigmatic: although the remaining part of the 05.03.2010 letter does not indicate stigma, the statement of objection maintains the petitioner was removed for misconduct, while admittedly no inquiry was held, no charge memo was issued and no finding was recorded.ratio¶14
The Rs. 2,00,000 awarded by the Labour Court would include the retrenchment compensation payable to the petitioner (about Rs. 1,10,000 as two months' salary under the employment terms, plus one month's additional salary as retirement compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unpaid since 2010).ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (single judge: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde) partly allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award dated 28.04.2015 in ID No. 32/2010 of the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, which rejected a terminated software engineer's prayer for reinstatement but awarded Rs. 2,00,000 compensation with 6% interest. UPHELD: rejection of reinstatement — the petitioner gained employment immediately after the 05.03.2010 termination on a higher pay scale (Rs. 9,00,000 p.a.) and soon shifted to another company at Rs. 12.7 lakhs, so he 'might not have lost much financially'. STIGMA FOUND: although the balance of the termination letter did not indicate stigma, the employer's statement of objection maintained the petitioner was removed for misconduct ('violation of standard terms and conditions of employment'), while admittedly no domestic inquiry was held, no charge memo issued and no finding recorded — hence the termination was 'indeed stigmatic'. QUANTUM MODIFIED: the Rs. 2,00,000 award was held to subsume retrenchment compensation (about Rs. 1,10,000 as two months' salary under the employment terms, plus one month's additional salary as retirement compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, unpaid since 2010); the residual Rs. 1,15,000 for a stigmatic dismissal of a then ~33-year-old employee was held slightly low, and the award was modified to a minimum of Rs. 3,00,000 overall — i.e., a further Rs. 1,00,000 payable with 6% interest per annum from the date of the award till payment. The Rs. 2,00,000 originally awarded had already been paid by the respondent in 2020 along with interest.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 10815 OF 2016 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. PUNEET WADHWA S/O M.M. WADHWA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/A C-1-23, GULMOHAR VIHAR JUHI, KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH - 208 014.

&PETITIONER

(BY SRI. A.J. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. SABRE TRAVEL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER HUMAN RESOURCES 2ND FLOOR, NAVIGATOR BUILDING, INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK, WHITEFIELD ROAD BANGALORE - 560 066.

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. V.S. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. GAYATHRI BALU, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO I.D.32/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE AND ETC.,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 28.04.2015 passed in ID.No.32/2010 on the file of II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. In terms of the said award, the prayer of the petitioner/first party to reinstate him to the original post with other consequential benefit is rejected.

The respondent/second party is directed to pay ¹2,00,000/- as a compensation to the petitioner. The Labour Court also held that the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum in case the amount is not paid within three months from the date of the publication of the award.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

Aggrieved by the aforementioned award

rejecting the prayer for reinstatement and compensation of ¹2,00,000/- awarded, the petitioner/employee is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was forced to tender resignation in the year 2008 and under the threat, the petitioner signed a resignation letter. However, petitioner was made to work under the respondent till March 2010 and on 05.03.2010,

he was again asked to tender the resignation letter to which the petitioner declined. Since he refused, the petitioner was issued with the termination letter which according to the petitioner is stigmatic and said termination letter is issued without holding any inquiry. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner raised an industrial dispute praying for reinstatement and other consequential benefits.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

6. The respondent/employer opposed the prayer

before the Labour Court and contended that the petitioner did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the employment, as such, his employment was terminated.

As per the terms and conditions of the employment, the petitioner was paid one month's salary. The petitioner has accepted it and immediately next month, he has secured an employment in a different company on a better pay scale and thereafter, he has worked in different companies on a better pay scale, as such, he is not entitled to any relief.

It is also submitted by the respondent that the

compensation of ¹2,00,000 though it is not due to the petitioner has been paid in the year 2020 along with interest as awarded by the Labour Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated and is entitled to a higher compensation as the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

termination order is stigmatic. To substantiate his contention that the termination order is stigmatic which he refers to, the statement in the termination order which reads as under:

"violation of standard terms and conditions of employment -termination letter".

and it is further submitted by referring to the statement of objection wherein as the employer has alleged that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of employment and on account of misconduct, he has been terminated. Thus, it is urged that the order is stigmatic and stigmatic order without any domestic inquiry is unsustainable in law and that stigmatic order had a severe impact on petitioner's prospect on career point of view and petitioner could not have a better bargain when he approached the new employer seeking employment. Thus, he would urge that the petitioner has to be reinstated to the post and all consequential benefits has to be given to the petitioner.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

9. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge

that immediately after the issuance of letter dated 05.03.2010, the petitioner has received one month salary

as agreed in terms of the appointment order and thereafter in the month of April, he has joined the new employer and three months on a higher pay scale of ¹9,00,000/- whereas the petitioner was getting a pay scale of ¹8.4 lakhs per annum and three months later, he joined one more company where he has received ¹12.7 lakhs. Thus, there is no financial adverse consequence on the petitioner. Though the letter dated 05.03.2010 would contain a statement that the termination letter is issued on

account of violation of standard terms and conditions of employment, the remaining part of the letter does not indicate that he had been removed on account of any misconduct and it is a termination simpliciter. In terms of

the contract of employment, the petitioner has been paid one month's salary which he has received. As such, it is

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

urged that the Labour Court is justified in declining the

prayer sought for reinstatement.

It is also urged that though the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, the respondent has agreed to pay compensation of ¹2,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court and that compensation is paid along with interest. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

The following two points would arise for

consideration:

"a. Whether the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the prayer for reinstatement?

b. Whether the Labour Court is justified in awarding a compensation of ¹2,00,000 ?"

As far as the rejection of prayer for

reinstatement is concerned, it is to be noticed that in the cross examination, the petitioner admitted that after the

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

termination order dated 05.03.2010, the petitioner joined

the service in a new company on a slightly higher pay scale of ¹9,00,000/- per annum. It is also noticed from the evidence led before the Labour Court that three months later, the petitioner joined another company with a pay scale of ¹12.7 lakhs per annum. It has also come in the cross examination that the respondent was the ninth employer for the petitioner. Earlier to joining of respondent's company, the petitioner had worked in eight different companies. Considering the fact that the petitioner was a software engineer at that point of time and the frequent change of companies is not something which is new to the said industry. However, what is required to be noticed is the petitioner gained employment immediately after the termination which was issued on 05.03.2010 and later, he has changed quite a few companies with a higher pay package. Thus, the Court is of the view that the petitioner might not have lost much financially. In any case, the Labour Court has awarded a

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

compensation of ¹2,00,000/- in view of prayer for

reinstatement considering the fact that the petitioner has joined a new company with a slightly better pay package and three months later, shifted to one more company with

a better pay package. The Court is of the view that the Labour Court is justified in not granting the prayer for reinstatement under the respondent.

As far as compensation of ¹2,00,000/- is concerned, it is to be noticed that the order of termination is indeed stigmatic. Though the order dated 05.03.2010 uses one statement which is referred to above and the remaining part of the termination letter does not indicate any stigma. In the statement of objection, the respondent has tried to maintain a stand that the petitioner is removed on account of misconduct. Admittedly, no inquiry is held, no charge memo is issued and also no finding is recorded. Thus, the Court is of the view that the termination is indeed stigmatic.

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

As already noticed, the Labour Court has awarded ¹2,00,000/- as compensation. It is not in dispute that under the terms of employment, the petitioner, in case of retrenchment without any stigmatic termination would be entitled to around ¹1,10,000/- being two months salary. As per the terms of contract of employment, the petitioner would have been entitled to one more month's additional salary as retirement compensation payable under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said amount should have been paid in the year 2010. That amount is not paid.

The Labour Court has awarded a compensation of ¹2,00,000/-. That compensation is awarded in 2015. The petitioner is entitled to reasonable interest on the delayed payment of compensation.

The Court is of the view that ¹2,00,000/-

awarded by the Labour Court would include retrenchment compensation payable to the petitioner.

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

Since, the Court has come to the conclusion

that termination is stigmatic, whether the compensation awarded (excluding retrenchment compensation) is adequate.

It is to be noticed that the petitioner was working as a Software Engineer under the respondent. When he was terminated from the service, the petitioner was around 33 years old. The termination order being stigmatic, the Court is of the view that compensation of ¹1,15,000/- awarded by the Labour Court after excluding the retrenchment compensation which appears to be included in ¹2,00,000/- awarded by the Labour Court is on a slightly lower side.

This Court is of the view that the petitioner should have been awarded a minimum ¹3,00,000/towards overall including retrenchment compensation. Hence, the impugned award is modified to that extent.

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1944 WP No. 10815 of 2016

HC-KAR

The respondent shall pay ¹1,00,000/- more to

the petitioner along with 6% interest from the date of the

award.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) Writ Petition is allowed in part .

b) The respondent shall pay compensation of ¹1,00,000/- to the petitioner along with 6% interest per annum from the date of award till the date of payment.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

SSD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15