ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
M/S Fouress Engineering (India) … vs Sri H M Devendra on 2 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 7056 OF 2020 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S FOURESS ENGINEERING (INDIA) LIMITED,
PLOT NO.2, 2ND PHASE,
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560058,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SENIOR MANANGER - HRD AND ADMINISTRATION,
SRI. K.B.DEEPAK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S N MURTHY, SR. COUNSEL, FOR
SRI SOMASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI H M DEVENDRA,
C/O SRI EERAPPA,
MAJOR,
Digitally
DOOR NO.74, J.R.STORES,
signed by C RAJAJGOPAL NAGARA,
HONNUR SAB PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
Location: BENGALURU-560058.
HIGH COURT
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI/SMT MAITREYI KRISHNAN, C/ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 23.05.2018 IN SERIAL APPLICATION NO.9/2002 (IN
I.D.NO.28/2001) AT ANNEXURE-T PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND GRANT PERMISSION TO
DISMISS THE RESPONDENT FROM SERVICE AS PER THE PROPOSED
DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 13.03.2002 AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 16TH FEBRUARY 2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-Company calls in question the order dated
23.05.2018 passed in Serial Application No.9/2002 (in I.D.No.
28/2001) on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru.
2. By the said order, the application filed by the
petitioner-Company seeking approval of the penalty of
dismissal imposed on the respondent-workman stands
rejected.
3. The material on record indicates that the Company
and the Union of its workmen entered into a settlement dated
30.08.1995 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short, 'the Act, 1947'). It is the case of the Company
that nearly 250 workmen subscribed to the said settlement,
while certain workmen did not. Nonetheless, the benefits
flowing from the settlement were extended even to those who
had not signed it.
4. The petitioner-Company contends that the
respondent-workman, along with others, participated in an
illegal strike commencing from 16.07.1998, in violation of
-3-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
Clause 16 of the settlement, which mandates issuance of at
least 14 days' prior notice in writing before resorting to a strike.
5. According to the petitioner-Company, the strike
continued from 16.07.1998 till 03.01.1999. It is alleged that on
16.07.1998, the workmen assembled near the main gate,
obstructed ingress and egress of men and materials, and
disrupted the normal functioning of the Establishment. A notice
dated 16.07.1998 is stated to have been issued to 104
workmen, including the respondent.
6. It is further alleged that, the respondent failed to
report for duty. The petitioner-Company asserts that on
06.08.1998, the respondent engaged in picketing and
demonstrations near the factory gate and raised slogans
against the management and non-participating workmen.
7. The Company alleges that on 08.08.1998, the
respondent obstructed a vehicle transporting workers and
issued threats to those willing to attend work. It is also the
case of the petitioner that despite issuance of a letter dated
27.08.1998 calling upon the respondent to resume duty, he
failed to comply.
-4-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
8. On 28.08.1998, the respondent is alleged to have
again demonstrated near the factory gate and interfered with
the movement of workers. On these allegations of misconduct
and disobedience, a charge-sheet dated 12.11.1998 was
issued.
9. The petitioner states that, after several months of
strike, a meeting held on 01.01.1999 resulted in a decision to
call off the strike with effect from 04.01.1999. An enquiry was
thereafter conducted by an Enquiry Officer, who found the
charges proved. Following issuance of a second show cause
notice, the respondent-workman was dismissed from service
with effect from 13.03.2002.
10. It is further stated that an industrial dispute in I.D.
No.28/2001 concerning the same respondent was pending, and
therefore, an application under Section 33(1)(b) of the
Act,1947 was filed seeking approval of the dismissal.
11. The Tribunal, framed a preliminary issue regarding
the fairness of the enquiry and held that the enquiry was not
fair and proper. The said finding was unsuccessfully assailed in
W.P.No.27355/2005. Thereafter, evidence was adduced by both
-5-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
sides on merits before the Tribunal, which ultimately held that
the charges were not proved and dismissed the application.
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would
contend that, the Tribunal has erred in disbelieving the
evidence of as many as eight witnesses examined on behalf of
the management, who are stated to be eye-witnesses to the
incident, merely on the ground that they are interested
witnesses.
13. It is urged that, in matters of this nature, the
occurrence having taken place within or in the immediate
vicinity of the Establishment, the witnesses would necessarily
be employees or persons connected with the Company, and
non examination of independent witnesses cannot, by itself, be
a ground to discard otherwise credible evidence.
14. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, the Tribunal
has not assigned any cogent reason apart from branding the
witnesses as interested, and therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside and approval ought to have been granted.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman
would support the impugned order, contending that the finding
-6-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
of the Tribunal that the charges are not proved is based on
appreciation of evidence and does not warrant interference. It
is further contended that the dismissal is an act of
victimization.
16. Attention is drawn to the cross-examination of
AW.6, Retired Assistant Security Officer, who has admitted that
the general shift commences at 08.30 a.m., whereas his
presence at 06.00 a.m. on the relevant day is not substantiated
by any attendance register.
17. Reliance is also placed on the evidence of
respondent who has deposed that he did not participate in the
strike on 16.07.1998 and had been absent due to a
bereavement in the family of a relative, but was nevertheless
denied entry on the following day unless the respondent
furnished an undertaking disclaiming participation in the strike.
This, according to the respondent, demonstrates victimization
and falsity of the allegations.
18. It is also contended that, the respondent was not a
signatory to the settlement dated 30.08.1995 and therefore
cannot be accused of violating its terms.
-7-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
19. The Court has considered the rival submissions and
perused the material on record.
20. It is not in dispute that the domestic enquiry was
held to be unfair and improper, and the said finding has
attained finality. Thereafter, the parties have led evidence
before the Tribunal on merits.
21. The petitioner-Company has examined nine
witnesses and produced seven documents, while the
respondent has examined three witnesses, including himself.
22. The consistent stand of the respondent is that he
did not participate in the strike on 16.07.1998 and that his
absence was on account of bereavement, and that he was
subsequently denied entry unless he admitted participation in
the strike by way of an undertaking.
23. The question that arises is, "whether the evidence
of witnesses connected with the Management can be discarded
solely on the ground that they are interested witnesses?"
24. The legal position is well-settled. Mere relationship
or association with a party is not, by itself, a ground to reject
testimony. At best, it is a factor that requires cautious
-8-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
evaluation. In the present case, the petitioner has examined
nine witnesses, including employees and contractors. Their
evidence could not have been rejected in limine without proper
scrutiny.
25. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the
Tribunal has discarded the said evidence on the ground that the
witnesses are interested, without assigning any further
reasons. Such an approach is legally unsustainable.
26. It is also to be noticed that, the alleged incidents
have occurred either within or in the immediate vicinity of the
factory premises. In such circumstances, the availability of
independent witnesses unconnected with the Establishment
would be inherently limited.
27. The Tribunal, in the considered view of this Court,
has failed to evaluate the evidence on record in a
comprehensive and holistic manner.
28. The discrepancy pointed out regarding the presence
of the Retired Assistant Security Officer, at 06.00 a.m. cannot,
by itself, be a conclusive factor to discard his testimony. It is
not uncommon for senior officials to reach the premises earlier
-9-
WP No. 7056 of 2020
than usual working hours in the event of industrial unrest or
disturbance.
29. A substantial portion of the impugned order is
devoted to narration of facts and extraction of legal principles,
with little or no substantive analysis of the evidence led by the
parties. Cogent reasoning is not forthcoming in disbelieving the
management's witnesses.
30. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order suffers from patent error in the
decision-making process, warranting interference in exercise of
Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
31. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23.05.2018 in Serial
Application No.9/2002 (in I.D. No 28/2001) on
the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru is set
aside.
SPONSORED
– 10 –
WP No. 7056 of 2020
(iii) The matter is remanded to the Industrial
Tribunal for fresh consideration.
(iv) All contentions kept open. It is made clear that
the Court has not expressed any opinion as to
whether charges are proved or not; and has
not expressed any opinion on the evidence led
by both parties. The Tribunal has to consider
the evidence afresh in accordance with law.
(v) Registry to return the Tribunal records to the
Tribunal.
(vi) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on
29.04.2026 without any further notice.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
