The Managing Director Vs Sri Rajappa

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 27.8.2013 IN KID NO.117/2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI, AT HUBLI, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT THE RESPONDENT INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACKWAGES AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

This petition is filed assailing the award in KID No.118/2021 dated 27.08.2013 passed by the Labour Court at Hubli. In terms of the said award, the claim under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'Act, 1947') is allowed in part. The order dated 02.07.2011 terminating the respondent workman's employment is set aside. The respondent-workman is directed to be reinstated by the petitioner-management with full backwages within 30 days from the date of publication of the award.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case would submit that respondent-workman was appointed on 10.01.1998 and he was working in the first unit of the petitioner-Establishment and on 12.06.2011 he was

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

transferred to the second unit which was established in 1998 and from 12.06.2011 the respondent worked till 30.06.2011 and, thereafter, the respondent did not report to duty. It is his contention that he abandoned the employment. It is further stated that the dispute is raised on 12.01.2012 alleging denial of employment. The petitioner-Establishment filed statement of objection before the Labour Court on 08.03.2012 and on the same day filed a memo. The memo according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:

¶26

"MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶27

The Respondent in the above case beg to submit as follows:-

¶28

In the above case respondent company has filed counter statement and is specifically averred that the claimant was not terminated by the respondent company at any time hence the claimant is at liberty to come and join the duties with immediate effect."

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to

¶30

the said memo would urge that, despite an unconditional offer made by the petitioner- Establishment which clearly stated that the respondent is not terminated from employment and is at

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

liberty to report to duty, the respondent has not chosen to report to duty and has contested the matter. Thus, it is urged that the award directing payment of full backwages from the said date till this date is impermissible.

¶34

In addition, it is further urged that the respondent is unable to establish the fact that the petitioner has denied the employment to the respondent and without there being any evidence, the Labour Court has concluded that there was an order of termination on 02.07.2011 and without there being any such order, Labour Court erred in passing an award, setting aside the alleged order and again erred in directing full backwages. It is his further contention that the respondent not having worked with the petitioner is not entitled to any backwages.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the memo dated 08.03.2012 is not communicated to the respondent and for this reason the matter was tried before the Labour Court and the Labour Court on appreciation of the evidence has concluded that the respondent is denied employment by the petitioner and has rightly set aside the

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

decision of the Management to terminate the respondent from the employment. It is the further submission that, since there is no charge leveled against the respondent and as no domestic enquiry is handled against the respondent, the Labour Court is justified in passing the award directing backwages.

¶39

It is further submitted by the respondent that when the present writ petition is pending before this Court, the respondent approached the petitioner with a request to allow him to join duty and he was not allowed to enter the premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would submit that respondent never approached the petitioner and in case if he was denied employment, nothing prevented the respondent from moving an application before this Court to modify the interim stay order granted by this Court.

¶40

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

¶41

Admittedly, no domestic disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence. Admittedly, no order is communicated in writing stating that the employment is terminated. Before the

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Labour Court, the management filed a statement of objection stating that the respondent has not attended to duty without there being any order of termination. In addition to that, it is also noticed in the memo which was filed on 08.03.2012 stating that the respondent is not terminated from service and he can join the duty under the petitioner establishment. Despite the memo dated 08.03.2012, the Labour Court has proceeded to adjudicate the matter which could not have been done or at least the Labour Court could have directed the respondent to report to duty and thereafter could have consider the case only with reference to the allegation relating to denial of employment.

¶45

Though the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the memo dated 08.03.2012 was not communicated to the respondent, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent in the crossexamination has admitted that he was called upon to report to duty. The statement in the cross-examination reads as under:

¶46

"I do not know whether respondent filed counter statement stating that they have not terminated the services of me and others and called upon for us to

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

resume our duty. My advocate informed me about the counter statement filed by the respondent and also asked me whether I am ready to resume my work".

¶50

From the aforementioned cross-examination, it is apparent that the respondent was aware that the petitioner - Management has offered the respondent to report to duty, which the respondent did not do.

¶51

Respondent-workman to substantiate his claim that

¶52

he was denied employment, led his evidence, but he has not led the evidence of any independent witnesses. There is no other record to hold that the respondent was denied employment. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that, probably it was a case of unauthorised absence and it cannot be construed as abandonment of employment because the respondent has raised a dispute within a reasonable time i.e., 6 months 10 days after the date of alleged refusal of employment.

¶53

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent that there was a denial of employment with effect from 02.07.2011 is illegal and untenable and without there being any evidence.

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Looking into the overall facts and circumstances brought on record, the Court is of the view that it is not a case of abandonment of employment and the respondent has raised the dispute within a reasonable time.

¶57

This being the position that the Labour Court could not have directed payment of backwages from 02.07.2011 till the date of reinstatement. To that extent the award is set aside. However, what is required to be noticed is despite the award being passed for reinstatement though the petitioneremployer has raised an initial contention that he is willing to permit the respondent to report to duty, has assailed the award directing reinstatement as well as the backwages and has obtained the stay of the operation of the award and because of the stay granted by this Court the respondent could not report to duty and is on 17B wages.

¶58

15. *The respondent is entitled to back wages from the date of interim order granted by this Court on 18.12.2013 till the age of superannuation or the closure whichever is earlier.

¶59

*Page 8 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 12.03.2026.

¶60

9 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:10315 WP No. 57584 of 2013

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

It is submitted that the petitioner industry is closed. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes the said statement.

¶64

17. *In case, Establishment is closed in accordance with law, then the back wages is to be paid till the date of closure or superannuation whichever is earlier. In addition to that, closure compensation if any, has to be paid to the respondent as required under law.

¶65

Any dues in terms of this order, shall be paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the amount due shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till payment.

¶66

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part .

¶67

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶68

GSR

¶69

*Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 12.03.2026.

The Managing Director v. Sri Rajappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Sri Rajappa

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

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs P Pothurajan

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Nagaraju

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B S Manjesh

The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar Bin Manjanna

Sri. Mahesh M Vs the Principal Manager

Zonta Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii