- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 253 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1534 OF 2020 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER (VOLVO) BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR K H ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 NOW REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560027 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND: H C GOPAL S/O CHENNACHARI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/O HAVANAHALLI MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TQ TUMKUR DIST-572227 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.G.S.NAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION BY Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 23/01/2020 IN W.P.NO. 1534/2020 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed to review the order dated 23.01.2020 in W.P.No.1534/2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Since the learned Judge has passed the order to consider the quantum of punishment as just and reasonable. In terms of the said order dated 23.01.2020, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The factual background is as under: 3.1. The petitioner/Corporation initiated disciplinary enquiry against respondent employee. The disciplinary authority after having found guilt of the respondent employee, imposed a penalty of withholding two - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 increments with cumulative. This order was called in question by raising dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court placing reliance on the order passed in W.P.No.40926/2011 has held that the punishment is improper and modified the punishment by invoking Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3.2. The petitioner/Corporation has filed aforementioned W.P.No.1534/2020 and said writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner/Corporation has filed writ appeal contending that the order passed in W.P.No.40926/2011 is in applicable to the facts on the case. However, in terms of order dated 12.07.2021, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.471/2020 has disposed of the appeal by reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the power under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, can be exercised by the Labour Court only in case of order of dismissal. In case punishment is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 not that of dismissal of service or termination of service, the Labour Court cannot substitute the punishment for lesser punishment invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, if employee is found guilty. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.29503/2018 has held that the Labour Court can invoke such power under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and perused the records. 7. The Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. LTD. And Others1, has held that the power under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to substitute the punishment for lesser punishment, can be exercised in the case of punishment is 1 (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 201 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 dismissal or termination. The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3678/2013 had followed the judgment of the Apex Court and has held that power under Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to substitute punishment for lesser punishment and can be invoked only in case of order of dismissal. Admittedly, in this case, the respondent was not dismissed. The punishment was imposed was reduction of two increments. 8. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Sri R H Mokashi vs The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Mysuru, in WP No.29503/2018, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the Labour Court can substitute the punishment for lesser punishment by invoking Section 11A of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. However, in that case, the punishment was dismissal. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for respondent based on the case of Sri R H Mokashi stated supra, is unsustainable. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4205 RP No. 253 of 2022 9. In view of the verdict held by the Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union stated supra, the writ petition could not have been dismissed confirming order of the Labour Court which has substituted lesser penalty than the earlier penalty imposed on the respondent, which was withholding two increments and not the punishment of dismissal. ORDER i) The review petition is allowed. ii) The award dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangaluru, ID No.78/2012 is set aside and the penalty imposed by disciplinary authority is set aside. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14