- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 44063 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 44850 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 44063/2018: BETWEEN: DIVISION CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, REP.BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, BANGALORE - 560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, REP. BY GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC & BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 054. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE N INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO.213/2011 DATED 25.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 IN WP NO. 44850/2019 BETWEEN: SRI V MANJUNATH, S/O A N VENKATESHA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, WORKING AS DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, KOLAR DEPOT AND DIVISION, AND RESIDING AT URATI AGRAHARA, THOTLI POST, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563102 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI SUBRAMANYA BHAT M, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ID NO. 213/2011 FROM INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND GRANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS.QUASH THE AWARD DTD. 25.01.2018 PASSED IN ID NO. 213/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE (VIDE ANNX-G), TO THE EXTENT OF DECLINING TO SET ASIDE THE PENALTY IN ITS ENTIRETY, AS THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ERRORS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 ORAL COMMON ORDER Writ petition No.44850/2019 is filed by the workman assailing the award dated 25.01.2018 in I.D. No.213/2011 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore. In terms of the said award, the penalty withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect and penalty treating suspension period as suspension and ordering for recovery of Rs.5,000/- in 25 equal instalment are not disturbed. 2. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty imposed by the Industrial Tribunal in terms of the impugned award. 3. Questioning the very same award, the employer is also before this Court in writ petition No.44063/2018. (Petitioner/workman in W.P. No.44850/2019 is referred to as petitioner in both petitions and petitioner/employer in W.P. No.44063/2018 is referred to as employer in both the petitions). 4. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is employed under the respondent. Alleging misconduct of not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 issuing ticket after having collected fare from the passenger. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges. The disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and thereafter, imposed a penalty withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect. 5. Before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner raised a contention that the enquiry is not fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the enquiry is fair and proper and opportunity is given to the parties to lead evidence. 6. The respondent/management did not lead evidence to substantiate its contention that petitioner is guilty of misconduct. Thereafter, the petitioner has also not led evidence on the premise that there was no evidence against him led by the employer before the Tribunal. 7. Referring to the evidence led before the disciplinary authority, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. However, observing that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged, reduced the penalty as noted above. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Tribunal could not have referred to the evidence led before the disciplinary authority as it has already concluded that the enquiry is not fair and proper. The finding of guilt by the Tribunal is based on the evidence from an enquiry which is held to be not proper is impermissible. The respondent/management has not questioned the order holding the enquiry as invalid and this being the position, the Tribunal should have set-aside the entire penalty imposed by the management. Thus, he would urge that the writ petition be allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent/management would submit that there is an inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal and raising a dispute. He would submit that though there is no specific challenge to the order passed by the Tribunal holding that disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper. The said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 order merges with the final order and final order is questioned before this Court, as such, the respondent is entitled to urge that the enquiry was fair and proper. 10. In addition he would also submit that the petitioner has not led any evidence to substantiate the contention that he is not guilty of misconduct. This is one of the reasons assigned by the Tribunal in holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal which has held the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. 11. Referring to the grounds urged in the petition filed by the management, it is submitted that there is no discussion on the contention raised by the respondent relating to the delay in raising industrial dispute as such, he would urge that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be rejected as industrial dispute is raised in 2011 challenging the penalty imposed in 2007. It is further urged that on earlier occasions, 143 disciplinary enquiries were held against the petitioner and he was imposed penalty on few - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 occasions as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court. 12. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has interfered with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and the discretion is not available under Section 11A in respect of minor penalty imposed and thus would urge that the penalty imposed by the respondent has to be restored. 13. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 14. It is not in dispute that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner was not fair and proper. That being the position, it was for the Management to challenge that order. That order is not challenged. The Management was required to lead evidence before the Tribunal to establish its contention on alleged misconduct of the petitioner. No evidence is led. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 15. The Tribunal in paragraph No.22 of the impugned award records a finding that the petitioner has not led any evidence to prove his innocence. It is to be noticed that the initial burden is on the respondent/management which alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner/employee. The respondent/management was required to lead evidence. The evidence which was led in the disciplinary enquiry cannot be looked into for the simple reason that the Tribunal itself has given a finding that the enquiry is not fair and proper. That order is not questioned even in the present writ petition No.44063/2018. No ground is raised assailing the said order which records a finding that the disciplinary enquiry was not fair and proper. This being the position, the Tribunal could not have relied on the evidence recorded in a disciplinary enquiry which is held to be not fair and proper. 16. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct which is recorded based on the evidence led in the disciplinary enquiry which is held to be not fair and property is totally erroneous. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 17. As far as contention relating to jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal under Section 11A, it is to be noticed that the Tribunal has not jurisdiction to interfere with the minor penalty could not have interfered with the minor penalty imposed by the employer. However, the penalty can be upheld provided the misconduct is proved. If misconduct is not proved, there cannot be any penalty. Since, misconduct is not proved as noticed above, the Tribunal could not have imposed the penalty which is impugned in the present petition by the workman. 18. As far as the contention relating to delay and laches in raising the industrial dispute, it is noticed that though the penalty was imposed on 30.06.2007, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which decided the appeal on 25.01.2008. On 12.07.2011, the dispute is referred to the Tribunal for adjudication. Noticing these facts, the Tribunal had held that the delay and laches cannot be a ground to refuse adjudication of the dispute. This Court does not find the reason to interfere with - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 the said view taken by the Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 19. More over, it is not pointed out as to how the respondent/Management is put to prejudice on account of the fact that the petitioner raised a dispute in the year 2008 by filing an appeal and raised an industrial dispute in the year 2011. 20. Hence, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Tribunal holding petitioner guilty of misconduct based on the evidence which is recorded in a disciplinary enquiry which is held to be not fair and proper is untenable. Hence, the following:- ORDER (i) The writ petition No.44850/2019 is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 25.01.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.213/2011 is set-aside. (iii) Writ petition No.44063/2018 is rejected. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22277 WP No. 44063 of 2018 C/W WP No. 44850 of 2019 (iv) The respondent/Management shall confer the consequential benefits that flow from this order within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30..