2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 26971

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
SRI HEMA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
M/S H.S.B.C. ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING – Respondent
WP 49431/2019

The burden to prove the status of a ‘workman’ lies on the employee, but it can be discharged by showing the employee is at the lowest rung of the hierarchy with no subordinates; an adverse inference can be drawn against the employer for failing to produce relevant documents. Dismissal for three days of unauthorized absence can be disproportionate, warranting reinstatement with reduced back wages.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(s) and 10 - Definition of ‘workman’ - Burden of proof - The burden to establish the status of a workman lies on the person who asserts such status - Designation and salary are not determinative factors; the question must be decided based on the nature of the work - The fact that an employee is at the lowest rung in the hierarchy, has no subordinates, and does not exercise managerial, administrative, or supervisory powers is indicative of workman status - An adverse inference can be drawn against the employer for failing to produce documents relating to the nature of work assigned, especially when the employee has discharged the initial burden. (Paras 27-42)

(B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11A - Power to modify punishment - Misconduct - Unauthorised absence - Proportionality of punishment - Where the charge of unauthorised absence, though not precisely the dates in the charge memo, is established for three days, the penalty of dismissal can be held disproportionate, particularly when other charges of insubordination are not proved - The court may order reinstatement with continuity of service but can deny or reduce back wages, considering the established misconduct. (Paras 57, 68-78)

(C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 17-B - Wages during pendency of proceedings - Any amount paid under Section 17-B to the workman shall be adjusted towards the back wages payable upon reinstatement. (Para 80(v))

Facts of the case:
An employee, working as a Customer Service Executive, was terminated by his employer after a domestic enquiry. The termination was based on charges of insubordination, lack of respect for organizational policies, and unauthorized absence. The Labour Court found the domestic enquiry was not fair and set aside the termination, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but denying back wages. Both the employer (challenging reinstatement) and the employee (challenging denial of back wages) filed writ petitions before the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the employee was a ‘workman’, noting he was at the lowest rung of the hierarchy, had no subordinates, and the employer failed to produce documents to prove otherwise. The court also upheld the Labour Court’s finding that charges of insubordination were not proved. However, it found that unauthorized absence for three specific days was established. Despite this, the court held the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate, as the charge memo did not mention these three dates. Accordingly, the order of reinstatement was upheld. However, because the misconduct was established, the court modified the award to grant 60% back wages from the date of termination to reinstatement, with adjustments for any Section 17-B wages paid.

Issues: 1. Whether the employee was a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Labour Court’s finding on this issue was perverse. 2. Whether the charges of misconduct, particularly insubordination and unauthorized absence, stood proved. 3. Whether the penalty of termination was disproportionate to the established misconduct, and what relief the employee was entitled to.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while the burden to prove workman status lies on the employee, it can be discharged by showing he was at the lowest rung, had no subordinates, and did not perform managerial or supervisory work. The employer’s failure to produce evidence of the nature of duties can lead to an adverse inference. For the misconduct of unauthorized absence, even if proven for a few days, the punishment of dismissal can be disproportionate, but the court can reduce back wages to reflect the established misconduct. The adjustment of Section 17-B wages against back wages is mandatory.

Result: Writ Petition No.43700/2019 (by employer) dismissed. Writ Petition No.49431/2019 (by employee) allowed-in-part. The Labour Court’s award modified to grant 60% back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefits, subject to adjustment of any Section 17-B wages paid. No order as to costs. Parties: Employer (a data processing company) vs. Employee (a Customer Service Executive) Dissenting opinions: None. The judgment is a single opinion by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde. Alternative viewpoints: The submitted argument that the employee did not prove his workman status and that any unauthorized absence amounts to gross misconduct leading to dismissal; however, the court did not accept these arguments fully.

(B) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Court sitting in appeal is not to substitute its view for that of Court below - It is only to see that decision arrived at is not afflicted by perversity, illegality or any other such vice which may compromise it beyond redemption - An order is not to be interfered with simply because another view is possible. (Paras 9.1 and 9.2) The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication or as a substitute for the original judgment.

Facts of the case:
The employee was terminated on grounds of misconduct, including unauthorized absence for 38 days in a calendar year. The employer conducted a domestic enquiry and dismissed the employee. The Labour Court found the enquiry was not fair, set aside the termination, ordered reinstatement but denied back wages. Both parties filed writ petitions.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the employee was a workman. It found that the charges of insubordination were not proved. It held that the unauthorized absence for three days was established, but the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. It upheld reinstatement and granted 60% back wages.

Issues: 1. Whether the employee was a workman. 2. Whether the charges of misconduct were proved. 3. Whether the penalty was disproportionate. 4. Entitlement to back wages.

Ratio Decidendi: The burden to prove workman status lies on the employee, but it can be discharged by showing he was at the lowest rung with no subordinates. An adverse inference can be drawn against the employer for failing to produce evidence of the nature of duties. For the misconduct of unauthorized absence, even if proved, the punishment of dismissal can be disproportionate, but back wages can be reduced. Section 17-B wages are to be adjusted against back wages.

Result: Employer’s petition dismissed. Employee’s petition allowed-in-part with 60% back wages. Parties involved in the case: Employer (HSBC Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited) vs. Employee (Mr. Hemakumar) Dissenting opinions: None. Alternative viewpoints: The employer argued that the employee was not a workman and that any unauthorized absence warrants dismissal. The court did not accept these arguments fully. The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication. The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication. The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication. The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication. The headnote is for personal use and is not intended for publication.