The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) awards under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, quashing a termination order and directing the reinstatement of an employee until superannuation. The judgment underscores that administrative memoranda cannot override statutory awards, reinforcing the protection of employment rights under Section 18(3)(d) of the Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sahadev Thakur, a 58-year-old employee of the Central Silk Board (CSB), was relieved from service pursuant to a Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Director, Central Tasar Research and Training Institute). The impugned order contravened an award dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in C.R. No. 151/2007, which had directed the petitioner’s reinstatement with continuity of service.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was employed at the Regional Tasar Research Station, a unit of the Central Silk Board, under the Ministry of Textiles.
- An industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner, leading to C.R. No. 151/2007 before the CGIT.
- The CGIT awarded reinstatement on 01.04.2013, holding that the petitioner’s termination was unjustified and directing continuity of service.
- Despite the award, the Respondent No. 2 issued a Memorandum (Annexure-F) on 20.04.2026, relieving the petitioner from service, purportedly in compliance with administrative directives.
- The petitioner challenged the memorandum as violative of the CGIT award, Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
- 2007: Industrial dispute raised; C.R. No. 151/2007 filed before CGIT.
- 01.04.2013: CGIT passed an award directing reinstatement and continuity of service.
- 20.04.2026: Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned Memorandum (Annexure-F), relieving the petitioner from service.
- 2026: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 15354 of 2026 before the Karnataka High Court, challenging the memorandum.
- 29.06.2026: The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of its earlier order in W.P. No. 18131/2025.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure-F) as contrary to the CGIT award and statutory provisions.
- A writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 (Central Silk Board) to continue his service until attaining 60 years of age with all consequential benefits.
- Costs of the proceedings.
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an administrative memorandum issued by an employer could override a binding award passed by the CGIT under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly when the award directed reinstatement and continuity of service.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The CGIT award dated 01.04.2013 was final and binding under Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and could not be circumvented by an administrative order.
- The impugned Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 violated the award, statutory provisions, and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.
- The petitioner relied on the principle that judicial or quasi-judicial orders cannot be nullified by executive actions.
For the Respondents
- The respondents contended that the Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 was issued in compliance with administrative directives and service rules applicable to the petitioner.
- They argued that the CGIT award did not explicitly bar the employer from issuing such orders, and that the petitioner’s relief should be limited to the terms of the award.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier order in W.P. No. 18131/2025, disposed of on 22.09.2025. While the judgment does not elaborate on the reasoning in W.P. No. 18131/2025, the operative part of the present order provides critical insights:
-
Primacy of CGIT Awards: The Court held that an award passed by the CGIT under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is binding on the parties and cannot be overridden by administrative memoranda. This reaffirms the statutory supremacy of industrial adjudication over executive actions.
-
Reinstatement Until Superannuation: The Court directed that the petitioner continue in employment until attaining 60 years of age, subject to applicable rules and regulations. This underscores that reinstatement orders under the Industrial Disputes Act extend until the natural age of superannuation, unless otherwise specified.
-
Period of Relief as ‘On Duty’: The Court further held that the period from the date of relieving the petitioner till his reinstatement shall be treated as ‘on duty’ for all purposes. This ensures that the petitioner does not suffer loss of service benefits due to the wrongful termination.
"The Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to continue in employment under respondent-Board till he attains the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to all the Rules and Regulations applicable to the employment of the petitioner. The period from the date of relieving the petitioner from duties till he is taken back to duties shall be considered as ‘on duty’ for all the purposes."
The Verdict
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- Quashed the Memorandum dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure-F) issued by Respondent No. 2.
- Directed the Central Silk Board (Respondent No. 1) to reinstate the petitioner and continue his service until he attains 60 years of age, subject to applicable rules.
- Ordered that the period between relieving the petitioner and his reinstatement be treated as ‘on duty’ for all purposes.
- Issued a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned memorandum.
What This Means For Similar Cases
CGIT Awards Are Binding and Non-Negotiable
- Industrial awards passed by the CGIT under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are final and binding on employers. Administrative orders or memoranda cannot override such awards, even if issued under purported compliance with service rules.
- Practitioners should emphasize the statutory finality of CGIT awards in disputes involving reinstatement, back wages, or service conditions.
Reinstatement Orders Extend Until Superannuation
- Where a CGIT award directs reinstatement, it implicitly extends until the natural age of superannuation (60 years), unless the award specifies otherwise.
- Employers cannot unilaterally terminate employees post-award, even under the guise of administrative compliance. Any such action is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.
Period of Wrongful Termination Treated as ‘On Duty’
-
Courts are inclined to protect service benefits of wrongfully terminated employees. The period between termination and reinstatement is deemed ‘on duty’, ensuring no loss of seniority, increments, or pensionary benefits.
-
This principle applies even in cases where the CGIT award does not explicitly address the treatment of the interim period.
-
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners:
- Always cite Section 18(3)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act to argue the binding nature of CGIT awards.
- Challenge administrative orders that contravene industrial awards as violative of statutory and constitutional provisions.
- Seek declaration of ‘on duty’ status for the period of wrongful termination to protect service benefits.
- In reinstatement cases, argue for continuity of service until superannuation unless the award specifies a shorter duration.",
