- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16535 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION CHAMARAJANAGAR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.) AND: M. S. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O SANNATHIMMIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O MARLA VILLAGE AND POST AMBLE HOBLI CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. L SHEKAR, ADV.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 16.09.2021, PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN SLA NO.472/2018 AT ANNEXURE-F. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner - the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - is aggrieved by the Award dated 16.09.2021 in Serial Application No.472/2018 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, while considering the merits of the Transport Corporation's application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] seeking approval for its decision to dismiss the respondent from service vide order dated 04.12.2018, has rejected such application opining that the Transport Corporation has failed to prove alleged misconduct against the respondent. 2. This Court must observe that the Tribunal, by its order dated 25.09.2019 has held that the domestic inquiry held against the respondent is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 both fair and proper and that there is due compliance with the requirements of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, and in fact, this Court must record that the Tribunal's order dated 25.09.2019 in this regard is because the respondent has filed a memo conceding the fairness of the domestic inquiry held against him. In the proceedings thereafter, the respondent has examined himself and marked Exbs A.1 to A.17, and on behalf of the Transport Corporation, an Officer is examined as OW.1 and a certified copy of the order by the competent Court in Special Case No.256/2018 is marked as Exb.O1. 3. This Court has heard Ms. Renuka H.R., the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, and Mr. L. Shekar, the learned counsel for the respondent on 09.04.2025, and has opined that the outcome of this petition must turn firstly on the question of law and next on the question of fact. On - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 the question of law, this Court has recorded that it discerns the following as the settled propositions. "[a] In an inquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1972, the concerned Labour Court/Tribunal, whenever Section 33(2)(b) becomes applicable, must firstly see whether there is due compliance with the requirements such as payment of one month salary along with the dismissal order and a simultaneous application for approval for such decision; [b] Secondly, whether the employer has held a fair and proper domestic inquiry, and [c] Thirdly, even if these two aspects are shown to be complied with, it would still be open to the Labour Court/Tribunal to examine on the threshold scale of a prima facie case whether the employer makes out a case for dismissal on alleged misconduct." The learned counsels are reserved with liberty to make their submissions in the light of these. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 4. Ms. Renuka H.R. submits that in the present case though one of the grounds urged is that the Tribunal could not have gone into the merits of the allegations against the respondent, such ground will not be pursued and will reserve liberty to raise this ground in an appropriate case with Sri. L. Shekar relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others1 as also the decision of the Apex Court in John D'Souza Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation2 to refute the proposition that the Tribunal could not have gone into the merits of the allegations. This Court must opine that if the Transport Corporation, which is aggrieved by the Tribunal examining the merits of the allegation in an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, does not press the ground in the present proceedings for 1 (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244 2 AIR Online 2019 SC 1202 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 whatever reason, it will be at liberty to raise such ground in the appropriate proceedings and the present petition must be disposed of on merits otherwise. 5. The allegation against the respondent, which has led to departmental inquiry with the Article of Charges being served on him, is that he misbehaved with a minor girl. The jurisdictional Police have started simultaneous investigations against the respondent for the offences punishable both under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences [POCSO] Act, 2012. In the course of investigation, the learned Magistrate, under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has examined the minor on 14-2-2018, and she has only stated that the respondent was compelling her to marry him and would occasionally grope her while she was sleeping. She has also stated that the respondent slapped her - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 because she refused to marry him; with her suffering bleeding from her nose and mouth, and because of this incident, she was staying with her friend in Bangalore. 6. However, both the minor and her mother have given a different version in the departmental proceedings. In their evidence in these proceedings, they have stated that she [the minor] developed affection for an acquaintance, who was engaged in supplying domestic cooking cylinders; that she stayed with him for some time and also went through the rituals of a marriage; that she has lodged a complaint with the police under duress when her mother, accompanied by the respondent [some relationship is attributed between them], compelled her to return. Their evidence in similar lines in the criminal trial has resulted in the respondent's acquittal in Special Case No.256/2018 by the judgment dated 15.03.2019, and this judgment has - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 attained finality. The Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority have taken a different view holding that the allegations of sexual assault by the respondent on the minor is proved. 7. It is undisputed that the minor's mother has also stated in these proceedings that a complaint is lodged against the acquaintance with whom it is stated that the minor eloped, but neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has considered this aspect. This Court must opine that these Officers should have considered the accusation made at the first instance resulting in the Article of Charges and the subsequent statements which show that the minor had developed affections for a third person and her mother was opposed to it and that the respondent had assisted the mother in persuading her to return, resulting in a complaint and a counter complaint. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 8. Ms. Renuka H.R. indeed argues that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority had the advantage of the evidence tendered by the minor and the mother in the criminal proceedings, but when these are considered by the Tribunal to assess whether approval should be granted under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, this Court, in the circumstances discussed, is not inclined to hold that there must be interference in the present proceedings. The next question for consideration would be what should be the consequential order. 9. It is undisputed that consequent to this Court's interim order dated 14.12.2022, the respondent is reinstated, and the question is whether the respondent must be allowed back wages with all consequential benefits and continuity in service. Sri. L. Shekhar canvasses that because the approval for the respondent’s dismissal is not given, it should - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 be deemed that the order for dismissal had not been passed and consequentially, the respondent must be deemed to have continued in service entitling him to all benefits such as continuity in service and consequential benefits. 10. The respondent is removed from service by the order dated 04.12.2018, which is not approved, and subsequently, he is reinstated after this Court's order dated 14.12.2022. The respondent has continued in service effective from such date. If the question, whether there must be back wages for this period is considered in the peculiar circumstances of the case as also the fact that the respondent, who pleads victimization, has not contended that he was not alternatively employed during this period between 04.12.2018 and 14.12.2022, the respondent cannot be allowed back wages. However, he must be allowed all other benefits. In the light of the afore, the petition stands disposed of by the following: - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15686 WP No. 16535 of 2022 ORDER The Transport Corporation, who has reinstated the respondent as aforesaid, shall grant all consequential benefits and the benefits that would follow from continuity in service, but the respondent shall not be entitled to back wages. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB