SRI JAGADEESHA S vs THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S AUMA INDIA PVT LTD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12106 OF 2022 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI JAGADEESHA S
S/O K.P.SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.2003
CHIKKAMANI DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 005.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. A J SRINIVASAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S AUMA INDIA PVT. LTD,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
NO.38A AND 39 B, II PHASE
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA
BENGALURU-560 058.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANAND K R., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 04.10.2016 AND
AWARD DATED 24.09.2021 PASSED BY THE FIRST ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.43/2014 A CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-B AND D AND ETC.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
04.10.2016 and 24.09.2021 passed by the I Additional
Labour Court, Bengaluru (for short, ‘Labour Court’), in I.D.
No.43/2014, whereby the domestic enquiry have been
held to be fair and proper, and the dispute raised by the
petitioner has been dismissed, upholding the order of
dismissal, respectively.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner,
while working as a Junior Engineer in the respondent-
Company, was subjected to departmental proceedings. A
charge memo was issued on 29.06.2013, alleging that he
had unauthorisedly used a mobile phone. Another charge
memo was issued on 29.11.2013, alleging that he had
forged the signature of his superior officer, one Arun
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
Kumar. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, an enquiry was
conducted, and a report was submitted holding that the
charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Based
on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the
respondent passed an order of dismissal on 21.11.2014.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute before the Labour Court. By the
impugned order, the Labour Court dismissed the dispute.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that two distinct charges were levelled against the
petitioner. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that
the charges levelled against him have not been proved by
the respondent before the Enquiry Officer. It is further
contended that the Labour Court, without considering the
evidence adduced by the parties and without assigning
any reasons, has merely extracted the proceedings of the
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
Enquiry Officer and the enquiry report, and proceeded to
dismiss the dispute. Hence, learned counsel seeks to allow
the writ petition.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent contends that two serious charges were
levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after
conducting a detailed enquiry, has held that the charges
were proved. Having regard to the materials available on
record, the respondent has rightly passed the order
dismissing the petitioner from service. Considering these
aspects of the matter, the Labour Court has rightly
dismissed the dispute. Hence, learned counsel seeks to
dismiss the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused
the writ petition papers.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working
as an employee in the respondent-Company. It is also not
in dispute that departmental proceedings were initiated
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
against the petitioner, charges were framed, and charge
memos were issued on 29.06.2013 and 29.11.2013, the
former relating to the unauthorised usage of a mobile
phone and the latter relating to the alleged forgery of the
signature of one Mr. Arun Kumar. The petitioner submitted
a detailed reply denying the charges. The Enquiry Officer
submitted a report holding that the charges were proved.
7. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised
an industrial dispute and urged 14 grounds, contending
that the charges levelled against him were false and
denying all the allegations made against him. The
petitioner also contended that the enquiry conducted by
the Enquiry Officer was not fair and proper.
8. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, has
merely extracted the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer,
the enquiry report and the documents produced by the
parties. However, no reasons are forthcoming in the
impugned order. The Labour Court has failed to consider
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
the evidence adduced by both the parties and has not
recorded any findings on the contentions urged by the
petitioner. The impugned order is bereft of reasons and
does not constitute a speaking order. The same has been
passed without proper application of mind and without
appreciating the materials available on record.
9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed
by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. On this short
ground, the writ petition deserves to be allowed in part,
and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Labour
Court for fresh consideration, in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the I
Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in I.D.
No.43/2014 is hereby set aside.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59940
WP No. 12106 of 2022
CNR: KAHC010266912022
(iii) The Labour Court is directed to reconsider
the matter afresh, taking into consideration the
documents available on record and the evidence
adduced by the parties, and pass appropriate orders
in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible
and, in any event, within four months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iv) All contentions of the parties are left open.
Digitally Signed by NARENDRA PRASAD
HAREKOPPA THIMMANNA GOWDA
(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
CM
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24