- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2693 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI IRAYYA A HIREMAT S/O MAHADEVAYYA HIREMAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT SUMBADA VILLAGE AT POST YADRAMI TALUK KALBURGI DISTRICT-585 325. 2. SRI SURESH IRAPPA KULEKUMATAGA S/O IRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT KORWAR POST DEVARA HIPPARAGI TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 120. 3. SRI PRAKASH, S/O SHANKAR RAO TIMKE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 91, SUBRAMANYA HOUSE, NEAR VEERABHADRA TEMPLE, DR. SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560 077. 4. SRI FAKKIRESH KALASAPURA S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT FUTAGAO VILLAGE BADANI POST, SHIRAHATTI TALUK GADAG DISTRICT - 582 116. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 5. SRI BASAVARAJ S/O SRI SHANMUKHA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT HONNALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 112. 6. SRI MAHIBOOBSA ARASANAL S/O SRI NABISA ARASANAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT MALAGALADINNI HIREMURAL POST MUDDEBIHAL TALUK VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT - 586 124. 7. SRI K.R.SHIVAPRASAD S/O K.RANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 71 SHIVAPRASAD NILAYA YARAYYANAPALYA, 2ND MAIN ROAD RAMAMURTHYNAGAR DOORAVANINAGAR POST BENGALURU 560 016. 8. SRI. ASHOK GOVANAKOPPA S/O SRI SABANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT YADAHALLI YADAHALLI POST BAGALKOT TALUK BAGALKOT DISTRICT - 587 313. 9. SRI N.H.MANJUNATHA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT BAGUR VILLAGE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 515. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR SHETTY K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C.) CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE MANAGEMENT BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C) CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C) K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. 4. THE CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER BENGALURU METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (B.M.T.C) K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANJEEV B L.,ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE CIRCULAR DATED- 22/03/2024 PASSED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, B.M.T.C, BENGALURU BEARING NO. 24/2024 IN REFERENCE - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 NO. VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE COMMUNICATION DATED- 11/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER, B.M.T.C, BENGALURU IN REFERENCE VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for quashing of the Circular dated 22.03.2024 [Annexure-A] issued by the third respondent, while also calling in question the Communication dated 11.07.2023 [Annexure-B] addressed by the fourth respondent. The Circular dated 22.03.2024, which ensures that there is Insurance Cover for every Officer/Workmen with the Transport Corporation in the event of demise while in service [Insurance Cover], in clause [2]1 excludes those who are reinstated pursuant to the interim orders of the Courts/Tribunals. The fourth respondent, by the impugned Communication dated 1 2.£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄzsÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ F AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 11.07.2023, has informed the Division Controllers that the workmen who are reinstated pursuant to the interim orders will only be entitled to a rest day in a week and one casual leave per month as against the leaves that a workman would otherwise be entitled to. 2. Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty K, the learned counsel for the petitioners, is categorical in stating that the petitioners do not press the challenge to the Circular dated 22.03.2024 in its entirety and that the petitioners' grievance is limited to Clause [2] on who will be eligible to the benefit under the Circular and the exclusion of the leave benefits only because the petitioners are reinstated in terms of the interim orders/final orders in the respective proceedings with the concerned Labour Court. The petition stands disposed of on this ground upon hearing Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K and Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondents. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 3. On material facts, Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K emphasizes that the petitioners were removed from service on the ground of participation in an illegal strike, but the respective Industrial Disputes at the instance of the petitioners, are disposed of by the Labour Court concerned directing reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits subject to withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect or punishment of such nature. The learned counsel also submits that in the case of some of the petitioners, they were reinstated even during the pendency of the dispute. 4. Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty K canvasses that Clause [2] in the impugned Circular dated 22.03.2024 could be cited by the respondents to deny to the petitioners’ dependents the benefit of Insurance Cover in the event of an unfortunate demise while in service citing the pending - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 proceedings. The learned counsel, while admitting that the respondents have filed writ petitions impugning the Labour Court’s decision in the corresponding Industrial Disputes, states that pending petitions cannot be a reason for denial of the Insurance Cover under the impugned Circular. 5. Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K further canvasses that if the petitioners cannot be excluded from the Insurance Cover because they are reinstated either during the respective Industrial Dispute or otherwise, the petitioners also cannot be denied the benefit of leave which they otherwise would be entitled to, and that therefore, this Court must intervene to the limited extent of clarifying that the petitioners, who are reinstated and who are party to the pending proceedings [the writ petitions] on the terms of reinstatement, cannot be denied the benefit of the Insurance Cover or the leave as would be generally permissible. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 6. Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondents, argues as follows. a. This Court must consider the petitioners' grievance in the light of the fact that they were initially removed from service for participating in an illegal strike. b. Because most of those who participated in such strike and were removed from service, signed a Joint Memo agreeing to accept certain punishment, the respondents have reinstated those workmen. The petitioners have not signed such Joint Memo and nevertheless, they have been reinstated subject to the outcome in the pending Industrial Disputes. c. The petitioners have not afforded any justifiable reason to vindicate their refusal to accept the terms as are accepted by the others who were also removed from service. d. There is a false propaganda amongst the workmen about the consequences that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 could be with the outcome in the petition. 7. However, when queried on the reasons in law [i.e., other than the reasons as aforesaid] for exclusions, Sri. B. L. Sanjeev cannot offer other reasons for the petitioners’ exclusion from the benefit of the Insurance Cover and the normally permissible leave if the current subsisting dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is only about the terms on which they must be reinstated with the petitioners refusing to sign the joint memo like the others. Further, this Court must opine that there should be tangible justification to treat the petitioners differently from the other workmen in the matter of Insurance Cover when they are reinstated and, that the present dispute is only about terms of such reinstatement and that the reasons presently offered are not such tangible reasons. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 8. This Court further opines that if Annexure-A cannot be cited to deny the benefit of Insurance Cover to the petitioners, the fourth respondent is not justified in denying the leave benefits that they would otherwise be entitled to and any opinion otherwise would be impermissible as it would tantamount treating a certain section of the workmen differently without a just reason. This Court must also hasten to add that this Court's opinion on petitioners' entitlement to Insurance Cover and leave as would be generally permissible, cannot create any advantage in the petitioners insofar as the pending petitions on the terms of their reinstatement. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The petition is disposed of declaring that the Circular dated 22.03.2024 [Annexure- A] cannot be cited by the respondents to refuse Insurance Cover to the petitioners on the ground that they are reinstated during - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11285 WP No. 2693 of 2025 the pendency of the Industrial Disputes and/or because the dispute persists with the parties agitating as against the terms of such reinstatement. ii. The fourth respondent's Communication dated 11.07.2023 [Annexure-B] is quashed insofar as the petitioners that they will be entitled to the leave as would be permissible under the relevant Standing Orders/Settlement. iii. It is reiterated that the outcome as afore will not, in any manner, inure to the petitioners' advantage or prejudice the respondents in the pending proceedings on the terms of reinstatement. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-, RB