Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 15585
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J
SRI.K.V.SIDARAJU – Appellant
Versus
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 55124 of 2014 (L-TER)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI SOMASHEKAR
The principle of 'no work and no pay' applies where misconduct is proved and justifies the denial of back wages despite reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ petition challenging the award of the Labour Court denying full back wages and continuity of service - The Labour Court found misconduct proved but took a lenient view imposing reinstatement without back wages. (Paras 4, 9, 10)
(B) Labour Law - Misconduct - The principle of 'no work and no pay' applies; the court upheld the decision to deny back wages due to proven misconduct despite reinstatement being ordered. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was initially dismissed due to serious misconduct after a disciplinary inquiry. The Labour Court modified the penalty to reinstatement without back wages, leading to this writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the Labour Court was justified in denying back wages based on proven misconduct, and modified the penalty regarding increments.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the appropriateness of the penalty imposed for the proven misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Labour Court had taken a lenient view, and the principle of 'no work and no pay' justified the denial of back wages.
Result: Writ Petition allowed-in-part.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background and context of the disciplinary action. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the proportionality of penalties. (Para 7) |
| 3. judicial observation on the conduct and decisions. (Para 8) |
| 4. final decision on recalibrating penalties. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. clarification on the implications of prior judgments. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the award dated 18.01.2014 in I.D. No.8/2012 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short 'Labour Court'). In terms of the said award, the Labour Court has modified the penalty of dismissal from service and directed the petitioner's reinstatement, however, backwages were denied. The Labour Court also directed withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
2. The respondent-Management has accepted the award. The petitioner-workmen is aggrieved by the award denying backwages and withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Management.
4. The respondent-Management initiated two disciplinary inquiry against two employees, one among them is the petitioner and another person is Gyanesh Sama. It is stated that there was altercation between these two employees and Gyanesh Sama lodged a complaint against the petitioner and petitioner later lodged a counter complaint against Gyanesh Sama. Same Inquiry Officer conducted two different inquiries and the Inquiry Officer found charges against the petitioner proved and consequently, the Management imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges of assault against Gyanesh Sama was not proved. However, on other charge that he was not on duty on a particular day was held to be proved and he was suspended from service for 15 days. Gyanesh Sama has accepted the said penalty and has not questioned the same. The petitioner has not questioned the verdict of holding Gyanesh Sama as not guilty of charges of assault against the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Management has not conducted the inquiry properly. The witnesses who have seen the incident of Gyanesh Sama assaulting the petitioner have not been cited as a witness whereas the petitioner's evidence and the evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the petitioner that Gyanesh Sama has assaulted the petitioner and petitioner has not assaulted Gyanesh Sama have not been considered.
6. In the alternative, it is also submitted that the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Thus, it is urged that the impugned award is to be set-aside and the petitioner is to be reinstated with full backwages.
7. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent on the other hand would contend that the petitioner is dismissed from service for proven misconduct where he has assaulted the co- employee in the premises of the respondent. Charges are grave and considering the fact that misconduct alleged against the petitioner is established, penalty of dismissal was imposed by the Management which is certainly proportionate to the misconduct proved. The Labour Court took a lenient view and set-aside the penalty of dismissal from service and directed reinstatement by withholding two increments with cumulative effect, the Management questioned the said award in Writ Petition No.17017/2014. Referring to the judgment dated 28.04.2014 in Writ Petition No.17017/2014, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that while dismissing the said petition filed by the Management, this Court has held that there is no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court and as such, he would submit that the present Writ Petition also is required to be dismissed.
8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
9. It is noticed
