- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5749 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: B HONNAPPA, S/O BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A SHETTY HALLI AT AND POST, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTCTI-573128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN IDA NO.3/2017 DATED 27.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, BACKWAGES AND FOUR ANNUAL INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT ARE CONCERNED AND ETC. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the workman assailing the award dated 27.11.2018 in I.D.A. No.03/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru to the extent of denial of back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 2. In terms of the said award, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated after setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The respondent/Corporation has accepted the award and reinstated the petitioner. 3. The Labour Court has denied the back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The Labour Court has also withheld 4 annual increments with cumulative effect. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorisedly absent from 15.04.2015 to 09.09.2015. It is submitted that petitioner had sustained injury on account of accident while on duty and as such, he was not in a position to attend the work and his application seeking leave was rejected. 5. In the disciplinary enquiry, the charges were held to be proved and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed which is later challenged by the petitioner and modified as noted above. 6. The Labour Court while setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service has also concluded that the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct and also by referring to the punishment imposed on certain other employees of the Corporation who were absent for more than 4 months and above, has concluded that the petitioner should also be directed to be reinstated with lesser penalty which is imposed as above. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the Labour Court has noticed that minor penalty has been imposed on certain other employees whose names are spelt out in para No.21 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has failed to grant the relief for back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 8. Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand would submit that the penalty imposed by the Labour Court is proportionate to the misconduct alleged. There is no infirmity and there is no scope to interfere in the impugned award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 10. In paragraph No.21 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has noticed that one C. Doddaiah was unauthorisedly absent for 2 years and 6 months and one - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 S.M. Dashma was unauthorisedly absent for 1 year and 11 months and one Abdul Samad was unauthorisedly absent for 2 years and 6 months and on all these persons only minor penalty was imposed. 11. It is also noticed by the Labour Court that one Venkatesh unauthorisedly absent for 1 year 7 months and again one M. Rajkumara remained absent for 348 days and only minor penalty was imposed on them. 12. It is not the case of the respondent/Corporation that against those persons, the back wages or continuity service or the consequential benefits were denied. This being the position, this Court finds merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty of denying continuity of service and other consequential benefits is not justified given the fact that the Corporation has not imposed such penalty on other employees who remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 4 months. The records reveal that it is a case of victimization. Hence, the following:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned award dated 27.11.2018 in I.D.A. No.03/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru is modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits. (iv) It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages during the period of dismissal. (v) The penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect will remain in force. (vi) The order shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53