The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar Bin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

The Managing Director Vs Sri Shivakumar Bin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part. The Labour Court award is set aside only to the extent of backwages from 02.07.2011 till the date of reinstatement. As the respondent-workman died on 25.10.2018, reinstatement could not be implemented; he is held entitled to backwages from 18.12.2013 (date of this Court's interim order) till his death, payable to his legal representative already on record. Dues are to be paid within 45 days from receipt of the copy of the order, failing which they carry 6% per annum interest from the date of the order till payment. If the establishment is lawfully closed, backwages run till the earlier of closure or the workman's death, plus any closure compensation payable under law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-workman was denied employment (terminated on 02.07.2011) by the petitioner-management, or merely absented himself unauthorisedly after the transfer to the second unit. +2 more

Court's answer

Admitted facts: no domestic disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence, and no order of termination was communicated in writing; the management's own statement of objection recorded that he stopped attending duty without any order of termination.

Ratio / Principle

Despite the management's memo of 08.03.2012 declaring the respondent not terminated and free to join duty, the Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter as one of termination/denial, which it could not have done; it ought instead to have directed the respondent to report to duty and then confined itself to the allegation relating to denial of employment.

Key takeaways

The respondent's own cross-examination showed he was aware the management had offered him to report to duty (his advocate informed him of the counter-statement and asked whether he was ready to resume work), yet he did not report.ratio¶59
The workman led no evidence of independent witnesses and there was no other record establishing denial of employment; the Court viewed the episode as probably a case of unauthorised absence and expressly held it cannot be construed as abandonment of employment, because the dispute was raised within a reasonable time (6 months 10 days after the date of alleged refusal of employment).ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), 17.02.2026, partly allowed WP No. 57585 of 2013 (L-TER) by which the Managing Director of Sri Anjanya Cotton Mill Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Labour Court, Hubli award dated 27.08.2013 in KID No.118/2011 (styled KID No.118/2021 in the judgment body), which had allowed the workman's claim under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, set aside the termination dated 02.07.2011 and directed reinstatement with full backwages. Recording that no domestic enquiry was held, no written termination was communicated, and the management's memo of 08.03.2012 declared the workman not terminated and free to join duty, and that the workman's cross-examination showed he knew of this offer yet did not report, the Court found the award's finding of denial of employment from 02.07.2011 illegal, untenable and evidentially unsupported, treating the episode as probable unauthorised absence rather than abandonment (dispute raised within six months ten days). It set aside the award's backwages limb from 02.07.2011 till reinstatement. Because the workman died on 25.10.2018 and the employer had obtained interim stay from 18.12.2013 (during which he drew 17B wages), backwages were awarded from 18.12.2013 to 25.10.2018, payable to his legal representative, with 6% per annum interest if not paid within 45 days; on lawful closure of the establishment, backwages cease at the earlier of closure or death, together with any closure compensation due under law.

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 57585 OF 2013 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI ANJANEYA COTTON MILL PVT. LTD., BADA ROAD, 1^ST UNIT POST: TOLAHUNASE DAVANAGERE TALUK

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

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

SRI SHIVAKUMAR BIN MANJANNA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR'S

1A. SMT. MANJAMMA W/O LATE SRI SHIVAKUMAR, AGE MAJOR, RESIDING AT ANEKAL SHEKHARAPPA EXTENSION POST: AVARAGERE TQ & DIST: DAVANAGERE.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

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.118/2011 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.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

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.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

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 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:

"MEMO FILED BY THE RESPONDENT

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

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."

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to 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 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.

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.

Learned counsel for the respondent would submit

that the memo dated 08.03.2012 is not communicated to the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

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 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.

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.

The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and perused the records.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

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 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.

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 cross-

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

examination has admitted that he was called upon to report to duty. The statement in the cross-examination reads as under:

"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 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".

From the aforementioned cross-examination, it is

apparent that the respondent was aware that the petitionerManagement has offered the respondent to report to duty, which the respondent did not do.

Respondent-workman to substantiate his claim that

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

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

reasonable time i.e., 6 months 10 days after the date of alleged refusal of employment.

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. 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.

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

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

the stay granted by this Court the respondent could not report to duty and is on 17B wages.

The respondent died on *25.10.2018. Thus, the award for reinstatement cannot be implemented. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the respondent is entitled to the backwages from the date of interim order granted by this Court, i.e., 18.12.2013 till the date of his death. The monetary benefits payable to the deceased respondent shall be paid to the legal representative, who is already brought on record.

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

In case, the Establishment is closed in accordance with law, then the backwages is to be paid till the date of the closure or death of respondent-workman, whichever is earlier and, in addition to that, the closure compensation, if any, required to be paid under law, has to be paid to the respondents.

*Page No.9 is retyped and replaced vide Court order dated 13.03.2026.

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:9652 WP No. 57585 of 2013

HC-KAR

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.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part .

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondent-workman was denied employment (terminated on 02.07.2011) by the petitioner-management, or merely absented himself unauthorisedly after the transfer to the second unit.medium confidence¶38
The court held
Admitted facts: no domestic disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent on the ground of alleged unauthorised absence, and no order of termination was communicated in writing; the management's own statement of objection recorded that he stopped attending duty without any order of termination.ratio¶51
2.
Whether, in view of the management's unconditional memo/offer dated 08.03.2012 asserting the workman was not terminated and was free to join duty, the Labour Court could properly adjudicate the dispute as one of termination and award reinstatement with full backwages from 02.07.2011.medium confidence¶37
The court held
Despite the management's memo of 08.03.2012 declaring the respondent not terminated and free to join duty, the Labour Court proceeded to adjudicate the matter as one of termination/denial, which it could not have done; it ought instead to have directed the respondent to report to duty and then confined itself to the allegation relating to denial of employment.ratio¶51
3.
From which date backwages were payable — from 02.07.2011 as awarded by the Labour Court, or only from the date of this Court's interim stay order (18.12.2013) — given the petitioner's stay, the workman's inability to report during the stay, and his death on 25.10.2018.medium confidence¶72
The court held
Since the respondent died on 25.10.2018, the reinstatement award cannot be implemented; nevertheless, because the petitioner obtained interim stay (from 18.12.2013) preventing him from reporting despite its initial willingness, the respondent is entitled to backwages from the date of the interim order, i.e., 18.12.2013, till the date of his death, and the monetary benefits payable to the deceased respondent shall be paid to the legal representative already brought on record.ratio¶72