IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 25249 OF 2022 (L-TER)

BETWEEN:

1. K T SHIVAPRAKASH S/O LATE K M THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS NO.282, NEW BAZAR STREET K R PURAM, BENGALURU-560036 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS B K THE CORPORATION BANK)

Location: HIGH COURT OF REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN KARNATAKA AND MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE, UNION BANK BHAVAN NO.239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400021 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRADEEP.S.SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE PORTION OF THE AWARD DATED

23/06/2020 PASSED IN C.REF. NO. 23/2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DENIAL OF BACK WAGES, ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the Award dated 23.06.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGIT'), Bengaluru in CR No. 23/2011.

2. The Central Government vide Order No.L- 12012/87/2010-IR(B-II) dated 27.05.2011, in exercise of its powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') referred the Industrial Dispute for adjudication by the CGIT.

3. The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the 'Corporation Bank' now merged with the 'Union Bank of India'. He was charge sheeted for alleged misappropriation of Rs.1,000/-. The Enquiry Officer however, found the charge proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after giving him an opportunity to show cause for the proposed major punishment, dismissed him from service vide order dated 30.06.2009. Against the said order of Disciplinary Authority, the appeal resulted in dismissal.

4. The Industrial Tribunal vide impugned Award has set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service and directed his reinstatement with continuity of service without backwages.

5. The present writ petition has been filed only confining to the 'not granting backwages' to the petitioner by the CGIT. It may also be noted that the said award came to be challenged by the respondent/Bank in Writ petition No.13043/2020 (L-TER). The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2022, whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court specifically held that when the misappropriation of the petitioner was not established, there was no question of losing confidence in the employee and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the petitioner to his original post with continuity of service without backwages, was justified.

6. The SLP (Civil) Diary No.25676/2022 filed by the Bank against the said order also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 26.09.2022.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the charge of misappropriation was not proved and therefore, the punishment and Appellate Order, being set aside and by directing the respondent-Bank to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, the backwages normally should have been granted. No special circumstances have been stated by the Tribunal in denying the backwages to the petitioner. He therefore, submits that the petitioner would be entitled to the back wages, may not be 100% but certainly up to 50% backwages.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that the order for backwages is not automat