- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106078 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. ANNAPPA S/O. BHIMAPPA KANAGALE AGE: 51 YEARS OCC:NIL R/O. HUDCO COLONY AKKOL ROAD, NIPPANI TQ: CHIKKODI DIST: BELAGAVI …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE,ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC CHIKKODI DIVISION R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHIKKODI DIVISION CHIKKODI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIOIN OR ORDER, QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN KID.NO.52/2013 DATED:16.10.2014, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.29 11:44:09 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction or order, quashing the Award passed by the Addl. Labour Court Hubli in KID No.52/2013 dated 16.10.2014 which is produced as Annexure-D to meet the ends of justice. b. Consequently to the quashing the award, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order of directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and other consequential benefits to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had been appointed as a conductor with the Respondent-Corporation on 10.08.1990, alleging that the petitioner was absent from his duties without leave from 26.03.2012 to 24.05.2012. The disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on 24.05.2012. The enquiry being conducted, the enquiry report held the petitioner to be guilty of the misdemeanors alleged - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 against the petitioner. A second show-cause notice had been issued after consideration of the same, ended in the dismissal of the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. 3. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before the Labour Court, Hubli by filing KID No.52 of 2013 under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Dispute (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987. The Labour Court dismissed the said claim petition, it is aggrieved by same, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Sri.Ravi Hegde., learned counsel for appearing for the petitioner would submit that; 4.1. On 21.03.2012, when the petitioner was on night duty (vehicle No.F-353) the back side tyre of the said bus was punctured as there was no one else the conductor was helping the driver and when the tyre was being replaced, suddenly the wheel pan turned and hit the left - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 leg of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner took treatment from a local doctor and thereafter approached the Belgaum Institute of Medical Sciences, where he was treated by an orthopedician and due to the said injury, the petitioner could not attend to his duties from 26.03.2012. 4.2. 4.2. The absence of the petitioner is not wanton but on account of medical injuries which had been suffered by the petitioner, which ought to have been taken into consideration, firstly during the enquiry stage and secondly by the Labour Court and the order of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Labour Court is required to be set aside. 5. Sri.Prashanth Hosmani., learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation would submit that; - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 5.1. By referring to the judgement of the Labour Court more particularly Para 13 thereof, the petitioner's contentions are contradictory inasmuch as in the claim petition file, it was contended that the petitioner suffered from an injury to the left hip, which left him immobile and he underwent treatment at BIMS Hospital from 26.03.2012 onwards. 5.2. However, the evidence led was completely different inasmuch as it was contended that the petitioner underwent treatment by Dr.Renake and Dr.Kavathigi Mutt at Nipani and Chikkodi respectively. The documents at Exhibit W-7 and W-15, which had been produced by the workmen indicated that the treatment was for cervical spondylitis, which is contrary to the claim made by the workmen of an injury to the left hip. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 5.3. He submits that the petitioner being required to report to Belagum, the petitioner contending that the petitioner was being treated at the BIMS Hospital but the medical certificates produced by doctors at Nipani and Chikkodi would indicate that the petitioner was not immobile and that the entire case of the petitioner was based on falsities. 5.4. He further submits that there were 19 earlier instances of the petitioner remaining absent without leave, which has also been taken note of by the labour court. 5.5. Therefore, in the absence of consideration of the medical excuse/justification made out by the workmen, the absence of the petitioner would have to be regarded to be wanton and as such the action taken by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Labour Court is proper and correct. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 6. Heard Sri.Ravi Hegde., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Prashant S.Hosamani., learned counsel appearing for respondent and perused papers. 7. There is substance in the submission made by Sri.Prashant S.Hosamani inasmuch as the contentions of the workmen are contradictory to each other. In the event of a workman being absent from duties without obtaining prior leave, it is but required for the workman to establish that his absence was not wanton and that the absence was necessitated on account of reasons beyond his control. 8. If at all the, petitioner had been able to establish the alleged hip injury by producing appropriate medical proof, the same would have been a ground to consider the contention of the workmen. However, the contentions of the workmen being contradictory to each other, on the one hand contending that because of the injury to the hip, he could not attend - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 and on the other hand producing documents that of doctors indicating that he was being treated for cervical spondylitis, I am of the considered opinion that the said excuse/justification offered by the workmen is not bonafide and as such, the same cannot be accepted and has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. 9. However, taking into account the fact that the petitioner had been appointed in the year 1990 and had attained the age of superannuation on 26.07.2022, the dismissal having occurred on 15.05.2013, I am of the considered opinion that the absence for 60 days as indicated above imposing the punishment to the extent of dismissal of the petitioner without any compensation is not in the interest of justice. 10. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the grievance of the petitioner could be satisfied by directing the Road Transport Corporation - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1406 WP No. 106078 of 2015 to make payment of certain compensation on a lump-sum basis. As such, I direct the Corporation to make payment of sum of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48