Karnataka High Court
WP/20483/2021 of SRI PRANESHACHAR H PURANIK Vs THE CHAIRMAN on 4 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:26439-DB WP No. 20483 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 20483 OF 2021 (L-TER) BETWEEN: SRI. PRANESHACHAR H PURANIK, S/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 20483 OF 2021 (L-TER)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRANESHACHAR H PURANIK,
S/O HANUMANTHACHAR,
AGED 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.310, 3RD FLOOR,
BRIGADE VISTA APARTMENT,
GOUDANAPALYA,
UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE - 560 061.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.N.MANJUNATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA GRAMIN BANK,
HEAD OFFICE, NO.32,
SANGANAKAL ROAD,
K.H.B.COLONY,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
GANDHINAGAR,
BALLARI - 583 103.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T.P.MUTHANNA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE AWARD PASSED
BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM
LABOUR
COURT
BANGALORE
DATED
18.11.2020
IN
I.D.NO.14/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 AND QUASH THE
SAME (ANNEXURE-J) 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 D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The petitioner who was working as daily wager/casual worker in the Bank from 1995 i.e., precisely from 12.05.1995 to 24.06.2013, raised the industrial dispute wherein his services came to be dispensed with without following the procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as, no notice of termination nor any retrenchment compensation was paid in violation of Section 25F of the Act.
HC-KAR
2. The Bank denied the petitioner's claim that he was working regularly from 1995 till 2013.
3. Initially, the petitioner was employed with Pragathi Gramin Bank, which was later amalgamated with Kaveri Gramin Bank vide notification dated 23.08.2013 and this Kaveri Gramin Bank is now known as the Karnataka Gramin Bank.
4. The Bank never disputed that the PF amount of Rs.41,259/- was paid to the account of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, petitioner was not employed in the Bank, we fail to understand how the PF contribution was opened in his name and the PF amount was paid in the PF account of the petitioner. The Management Witness, MW-1 did not deny the suggestion to claim that the Bank had credited Rs.41,259/- PF contribution in the PF Account of the petitioner.
5. The learned Tribunal has brushed aside the said fact only on the ground that there was no pleading in
HC-KAR
respect of the PF contribution amount of Rs.41,259/- credited in PF account of the petitioner and therefore, the question could not have been put to the Management Witness. We are of the view that the said observation of the Tribunal is wholly incorrect. The strict rules of pleadings and evidence are not applicable in procedings before the Labour Court or before Industrial Tribunal. The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal has to follow the principles but no/not strict rules of pleading and evidence. When the Management did not deny payment of PF amount of Rs.41,259/- in the PF account of the petitioner, we are of the view that petitioner's case was liable to be allowed. When the Bank has not followed the law while retrenching petitioner from its services, we are of the view that though the petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement, but he must be paid compensation in lump-sum inasmuch as, he has been working with the Bank for 18 long years before his services came to be dispensed with by the Bank.
HC-KAR
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore direct the Bank to pay a lum- psum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the petitioner within a period of four weeks.
With the aforesaid direction, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
BSV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8