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:

1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR BIN MANJANNA Digitally SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LR'S signed by PRAMILA G V Location: 1A. SMT. MANJAMMA HIGH COURT W/O LATE SRI SHIVAKUMAR, OF AGE MAJOR, KARNATAKA RESIDING AT ANEKAL SHEKHARAPPA EXTENSION POST: AVARAGERE TQ & DIST: DAVANAGERE.

…RESPONDENTS (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.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.

2. 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. 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. 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.

5. 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.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the memo dated 08.03.2012 is not communicated to the r