- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3256 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISION CONTROLLER BMTC, EAST DIVISION, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560 066, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE A/W SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SIDDARAMAPPA K. T. TOKEN NO. 1964, S/O. SRI. THIMMAPPA K.G., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KABBALA VILLAGE AND POST, SRIRAMAPURA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577542. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K B NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.07.2015 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.64/2014, VIDE ANNX-G; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 30.07.2016 PASSED BY THE II ADDL LABOUR Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.64/2014, VIDE ANNX-H; CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.64/2014. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER This petition is by the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [for short, 'the Transport Corporation’] calling in question the order dated 01.07.2015 and the award dated 30.07.2016 [Annexures-G and H] in ID No.64/2014 on the file of the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, ’the Labour Court’]. The Labour Court, by the first impugned order dated 01.07.2025, has answered the Preliminary Issue on whether the domestic inquiry held by the Transport Corporation against the respondent is fair, and the Labour Court has opined that such inquiry is neither fair nor proper. 2. After this order dated 01.07.2015, the Labour Court has permitted the respondent and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 Transport Corporation to examine their witnesses and mark documents. If the respondent has examined himself as WW.1, the Transport Corporation has examined three witnesses, including Ms. Muttava Malagi [MW.2 - who was part of the checking squad]. The respondent has marked copies of charge sheet, order of dismissal and a copy of General Standing Order dated 28.04.1972, and the Transport Corporation has marked documents such as Conductor’s Waybill, Unpunched Tickets, Statement of certain Passengers, the Charge Memo, Article of Charges, the respondent’s Reply to the charges, Inquiry Report and the Dismissal Order. 3. The Labour Court, by the next impugned order dated 30.07.2016, has answered the next issue on whether the petitioner is justified in dismissing the respondent from service in favour of the respondent and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 without back wages. This Court by order dated 27.01.2017 has granted interim order reinstating the respondent in the post held by him with current wages subject to the result of the writ petition. 4. The charge against the respondent is based on an inspection conducted on 27.08.2010 when the Corporation's bus in which the respondent was working as a Conductor was intercepted for checking by the checking squad. The Transport Corporation has alleged that the respondent has had re-issued the tickets [i.e., issued tickets for the previous stage collecting actual fare-Used Tickets- to 14 passengers]. The Transport Corporation has also mentioned that the respondent had issued valid tickets only to 8, while the other 39 passengers were pass holders. On the date of inspection viz., 27.08.2010, Offence Memo is drawn after recording the statements of three passengers. The Inspecting - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 Squad has also filed a Report of the Incident to the Divisional Officer. 5. The respondent when served with the charge sheet has not replied, but he has participated in the inquiry resulting in his dismissal from service vide the order dated 21.12.2012. The respondent's appeal as against this order with the Appellate Authority within the Transport Corporation is rejected, as also the subsequent revision. The Appellate Authority's order is dated 13.04.2013 and the review authority's order is dated 02.06/07.2013. 6. The respondent, after these proceedings, has raised a dispute with the Labour Court, and the Labour Court has found that the Transport Corporation’s failure to examine the passengers to whom the respondent had issued Used Tickets violates principles of natural justice affecting the fairness and the propriety of the domestic inquiry. On the merits otherwise, the Labour Court has held - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 against the Transport Corporation inter-alia for these reasons. [a] According to the Transport Corporation, there were 61 passengers in the bus at the time of inspection and the petitioner had reissued Used Tickets to 14 passengers, but the charge memo records that there were only 8 passengers apart from 39 passengers with Bus Passes. The Labour Court has opined that the petitioner has failed to establish that indeed 14 passengers were traveling in the bus at the time of incident to whom the respondent had issued Used Tickets. [b] Ms. Muttavva Malagi, a member of the checking squad, is examined in the proceedings with the Labour Court. This witness has admitted that when a conductor has failed to issue tickets [or when a conductor issues the Used Tickets], Un-punched Tickets are seized, but in the present case they have not been recovered any Un-punched Tickets. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 witness has also admitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of the passengers upon which the Transport Corporation relies to show that the respondent has admitted the presence of those passengers to whom he had allegedly issued Used Tickets. [c] The entire checking is completed within five minutes, and it is highly improbable that the Charge Memo, the statement of the passengers, checking of the passengers and closure of the waybills could be completed within five minutes. 7. Further, the Labour Court has opined that the Transport Corporation has drawn no Mahazar/Panchanama while admitting that it has issued orders on checking a minimum number of buses and booking a specific number of cases in a month. The Labour Court has concluded that the respondent is victimized because, though the persons with repeated allegations of wrong doing, are imposed - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 with the punishment of reduction of three annual increments, the petitioner is dismissed from service. 8. Ms. Renuka H.R., the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court's order dated 01.07.2015 is wholly erroneous and that in deciding whether domestic inquiry is fair and proper, the Labour Courts are required only to examine due compliance with the procedure that is contemplated for holding such inquiry. The learned counsel next emphasizes that the decision of the Apex Court in Hadwari Lal v. State of UP and Others1 is rendered in the context of a preliminary inquiry and will not apply to a case where domestic inquiry is held, but the Labour Court has relied on this decision. 9. Ms. Renuka H.R. next submits that typically it would be open to the Transport Corporation to contend that if this Court is 1 [2001] LLJ 495 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 persuaded to interference with the Labour Court's first order dated 01.07.2015, this Court must only decide on the merits of the decision to dismiss the respondent from service on the material placed on record in the domestic inquiry and not based on the evidence let in with the Labour Court, but in the present circumstances, she would persuade this Court to opine that even according to the evidence before the Labour Court there is no justification for interference with the decision to dismiss the respondent from service. 10. Sri K. B. Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel for the respondent, is heard in the light of these submissions, and in fact, he has placed on record a copy of the deposition and the exhibits which are marked in the proceedings with the Labour Court. On evidence, Ms. H. R. Renuka submits that the Labour Court has erred in appreciating Ex.M.4 and Ex.M.5 [the Charge Memo and the Incident - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 Report] in holding that only 47 passengers [08 + 39] were in the bus. The learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the details of the allegations as found both in the Offence Memo and the Incident Report. 11. Indeed, on reading the Offence Memo and the Incident Report, this Court must opine that it cannot be readily opined that there is contradiction in mentioning the number of passengers as 08 + 39 with the allegation that there were 61 passengers and out of these passengers 39 were pass holders, the respondent had issued proper tickets to 8 and had issued Used Tickets to the next 12 passengers. However, neither this, by itself, nor the evidence of Ms. Muttavva Malagi that the checking went on for 20 minutes and not just 5 minutes as recorded by the Labour Court [another submission by Ms. Renuka H.R. on the Labour Court misconstruing the evidence] - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 detract the merits of the Labour Court's finding on the lack of evidence. 12. This Court, in this regard, must record that the Labour Court's finding is based on the statements attributed to the passengers, and these statements are marked as Ex.M.3 series. This Statement [Ex.M3] is purportedly by a passenger by the name Sri. Narayan and it has his signature in the prescribed column, but this Statement also has the LTM impression of another person just above the writing in vernacular. The writing is that the Statement is being made with the assistance of a friend. 13. If the Statement is attributed to a passenger by name Sri. Narayan, the reason for the affixture of LTM by another passenger is rendered highly improbable, especially when there is no explanation on why the assistance was necessary. As such, this Statement cannot inure to the Transport - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 Corporation’s advantage. It is also that the respondent has subscribed his signature to each of these Statements attesting contents, but these Statements only bear the signatures and there is nothing to show that the respondent has put his signature after knowing the contents. This should have been forthcoming, as it would be the true import of any attestation. 14. The next circumstance that creates doubt about the Transport Corporation's case against the respondent is lack of recovery or confiscation of Un- punched tickets. It is undisputed that when tickets are issued by a conductor, these tickets are punched, and if during an inspection, it is verified that there are passengers without tickets [or with Unused Tickets], to ensure fairness the requisite number of tickets which are not punched are seized as part of the inspection proceeding. The allegation in the present case is that the respondent had issued Used - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 - Tickets to the passengers that is issued for the previous stage. The Inspection squad should have seized Un-punched Tickets, and Ms. Muttavva Maligi states that they have not seized Un-punched tickets from the conductor at the time of inspection. 15. The next circumstance that increases the doubt about the Transport Corporation’s case against the petitioner is the fact that though the witness admits that a Mahazar and a Panchanama are drawn, these have not been produced. Further, as observed by the Labour Court that the inspection proceedings may have taken twenty minutes but the witness states that the inspection is conducted over twenty minutes, but she also states that substantial work of inspection was completed in five minutes at Lal Bagh and the Statements of the passengers were taken at Market [the destination]. This dichotomous explanation is without even one of the passengers being examined and the discrepancy in the - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 Statements attributed to them, and these will be significant. 16. On a complete reading of these circumstances, this Court cannot opine that the Labour Court's finding is perverse or contrary to the evidence on record. At this stage, Ms. H.R. Renuka canvasses that this Court must intervene with the Labour Court's order to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits emphasizing that this Court must deny the consequential benefits for the period between 21.12.2012 when the respondent is dismissed from service till the effective date of award. The learned counsel invites this Court's attention to the reasoning assigned by the Labour Court on the respondent's case of victimization. 17. Mr. K. B. Narayanaswamy is also heard in this regard, and his ultimate canvass is that denial of continuity of service would be harsh and not - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 commensurate because the Labour Court, as also this Court, has opined that the petitioner has not proved charges against the respondent. The respondent cannot be denied continuity of service as canvassed, but in the circumstances denial of consequential benefits for the period of the dismissal from service [21.12.2012] and effective date of award would meet the ends of justice when it is undisputed that there are over 50 antecedent similar circumstances against the petitioner. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed-in-part modifying the Labour Court's order dated 30.07.2016 confirming the respondent's reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service denying consequential benefits. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:13905 WP No. 3256 of 2017 [B] The Transport Corporation is called upon to compute the back wages that must accrue to the respondent consequent to this modification and pay all dues as would be due within three [3] months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19