- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 7938 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. A NARAYANASWAMY, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT 16TH WARD, BEHIND HEALTH QUARTERS, BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-578201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.G. MITHUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A C BALARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD 30.4.2016 PASSED IN I.D.NO.340/2012 BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-A TO THE W.P. AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE REFERENCE FOR ADJUDICATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 2. This petition is filed challenging the award rejecting the Reference in terms of the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 in I.D. No.340/2012 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. 3. The respondent Corporation passed an order on 25.02.2012 imposing penalty of withholding increment with cumulative effect on account of the misconduct alleged. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said punishment approached the Union to take appropriate action on his behalf. The Union on behalf of the petitioner approached the conciliation officer, conciliation failed and the matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal. 5. Before the Tribunal, the Union though appeared did not file the claim petition on behalf of the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 Consequently, the reference was rejected. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that after the penalty was imposed in terms of order dated 25.02.2012, the petitioner had requested the Union to represent his cause and Union having submitted the representation to the conciliation officer and conciliation having failed, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Before the Industrial Tribunal, though the Union appeared on few occasions, later failed to file the claim petition on behalf of the petitioner. It is his submission that the petitioner was transferred to different places, as such, he could not pursue the proceeding before the Industrial Tribunal which eventually came to be rejected. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was not aware that he is not duly represented by the Union before the Industrial Tribunal, he could not pursue his remedy challenging the order of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 punishment. Thus, he would submit that the impugned order has to be set-aside and the matter has to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that despite sufficient opportunity being given to the Union, the Union has not filed any claim petition. It is his submission that the petitioner should have approached the Union and should have pursued the Union to submit the claim petition on his behalf and on account of the default on the part of the petitioner as well as the Union, the Tribunal rightly dismissed. Thus, he would urge that petition has to be dismissed. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 10. There is no dispute that the penalty was imposed on the petitioner in terms of the order dated 25.02.2012. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner aggrieved by the said order has approached the Union to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 redress his grievance. Union has made a representation to the conciliation officer and the conciliation failed and thereafter, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the Union represented the petitioner, but failed to file a claim petition. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was transferred to different places by the employer. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be granted to the petitioner to file a claim petition in the event of default on the part of the Union to file the claim petition. For this reason, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter is to be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Hence, the following; ORDER (i) The parties before the Industrial Tribunal shall appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 29.01.2025. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:465 WP No. 7938 of 2017 (ii) The petitioner shall furnish the copy of this order to the Union and the Union shall represent the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal by filing a claim petition. (iii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 12. All contentions kept open. 13. Once the claim petition is filed, the same shall be adjudicated in accordance with law. 14. Petition is allowed-in-part. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45