THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10TH MARCH, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV JUDGMENT

Writ Petition No. 43700 of 2019 is filed by the employer challenging the award passed in Reference No. 58 of 2016. In terms of the impugned award dated 14.05.2019, the Labour Court has set aside the order of termination dated 23.05.2016 and directed the petitioner-employer to reinstate the employee with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, while denying back wages.

2. Writ Petition No. 49431 of 2019 is filed by the employee challenging the very same award dated 14.05.2019 to the extent of denial of back wages. Since both writ petitions challenge the same award, both petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

3. For the sake of convenience, the employer is referred to as the petitioner and the employee is referred to as the respondent in both petitions.

4. The respondent joined the petitioner as a Customer Service Executive on 15.10.2007. The records indicate that the respondent had raised certain issues relating to Deferred Cash Incentive, to which the petitioner claims to have responded with appropriate clarification and justification.

5. It is noticed from the records that the respondent had addressed emails to superior officers in the company, and the petitioner claims that the two emails were in violation of specific instructions issued to the respondent, as he was not supposed to address emails directly to higher officers by bypassing the intermediate officers whom the respondent was required to approach in case of any grievance.

6. In addition, it is alleged that the emails addressed by the respondent related to issues or matters not connected with the petitioner or with the respondent’s work.

7. It is further alleged that the respondent remained unauthorisedly absent for 38 days during the calendar year 2016. On these allegations of misconduct, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and thereafter passed the order of termination dated 23.05.2016.

8. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the respondent raised an industrial dispute. The appropriate Government referred the matter for adjudication. The respondent filed a claim statement before the Labour Court seeking reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service, and all consequential benefits.

9. The petitioner filed its statement of objections, disputing inter alia, the status of the respondent as a workman and contended that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

10. In addition, the petitioner contended that the respondent had not performed his duties satisfactorily, had exhibited insubordination, had remained unauthorisedly absent, and was guilty of misconduct, and the respondent’s employment was terminated after holding a valid domestic enquiry.

11. The respondent filed a rejoinder to the statement of objections and reiterated his position as a workman. Respondent also furnished the hierarchy in the establishment and claimed that he was placed at the lowest rung in the hierarchy of his department.

12. The Labour Court, on consideration of the materials placed before it, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner was not fair and proper. Consequently, both parties were permitted to lead evidence on the merits of the matter.

13. After considering the evidence, the Labour Court concluded that the misconducts relating to insubordination, lack of confidence, and violation of the Rules and Regulations of the establishment were not established. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the unauthorised absence for a few days was established and took a view that such unauthorised absence could have been treated as leave without pay. Accordingly, it held that the penalty of termination from service was disproporti