- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 103436 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC BELGAUM DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBBALLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. IRAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA HURALI AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL, R/O. AT AND POST: HOSUR, TQ: SAUNDATTI, AND DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD MADE IN K.I.D. NO.36/2012 DATED 28.11.2013 (ANNEXURE ‘A’) PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI AT: HUBLI AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.01 15:28:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner Road Transport Corporation, is before this court seeking the following reliefs: (i) A writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any other appropriate writ, direction or order QUASHING the award made in K.I.D. No.36/2012 dated 28.11.2013 (ANNEXURE ‘A’) passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubli At: Hubli. (ii) Such other writ, direction or order that this Hon’ble Court may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of the case. 2. It is contented that the respondent was appointed as a trainee conductor-cum-driver on 12/02/2007. On account of unauthorized absence, he was dismissed from service by the Corporation on 29/02/2012. The respondent trainee, having raised a dispute in KAD No.36/2012, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal and directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post with continuity of service, as also consequential benefits in notional terms, but without back wages, within two months. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission Smt.P. R. Bentur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the respondent being a trainee, the petitioner Corporation could dismiss the said trainee at any time. The said trainee cannot be considered to be a workman, and further, though until confirmation of appointment, such conductor-cum-driver could not raise a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, she submits that this aspect has not been considered is a proper perspective and, in this regard, relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2024 in W.A.No.100654/2017 (The Management of NWKRTC Vs. Gangaramsingh). 4. Sri. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman, would rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 (Basanagouda Vs. The Divisional Controller) and submits that the judgment in W.A.No.100654/2017 was rendered on the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.100556/2015, which, in turn was rendered on the basis of the judgment in W.A.No.100383/2014. All three judgments have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 25.04.2024 in W.A.No.100878/2017 and connected matters and the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion that, in all those judgments, the aspect of definition of 'workman' had not been considered and it is on the basis of the submissions made by the Road Transport Corporation that the workman is a trainee, orders were passed. 5. The Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters has passed a detailed judgment of nearly 90 pages. Considering all these aspects and negating the contentions of the Road Transport - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 Corporation that a trainee could be appointed and has also categorically came to the conclusion that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Road Transport Corporation do not provide for the recruitment of trainee conductor-cum-drivers. Any such recruitment would have to be on a permanent basis only. 6. Thus once the respondent was appointed as a Driver- cum-Conductor, he could not be said to be a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor on that ground it is submitted that the decision of the Labour Court is proper and correct. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and perused the papers. 8. Though Labour Court did not have the benefit of the order of the coordinate bench dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P.No.100878/2017. The Labour Court has considered the matter and come to a conclusion that the workmen was discharging the duties as that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781 WP No. 103436 of 2016 of any other workmen. There is no difference in the work discharged by this workmen and any other driver-cum-conductor and come to a conclusion that he cannot be said to be a trainee. Be that as it may, in view of the Judgement dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017, this aspect having been considered in detail and the coordinate bench having come to a categorical conclusion that there could be no appointment of a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor and training during the course of employment would not make that person a trainee Driver-cum- Conductor. The same would be applicable to the present case also. I do not find any grounds in the petition. Petition stands dismissed. 9. The time fixed by the Labour Court is extended by period of one month from today, by which time, the Road Transport Corporation would have to comply with the order of the Labour Court. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GAB/CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21