- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10524 WP No. 55667 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 55667 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPERSENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HASSAN - 573 101. REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE-027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. K.H. MALLIKARJUNA CONDUCTOR, BADE NO.1665, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C., EMPLOYEES UNION-INTUC, SRI.MANJUNATHA BUILDING ADUVALLY MAIN ROAD, HASSAN - 573 101. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENTS SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOCALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT HUBLI IN REF.NO.3/2010 ORDER DATED 18.3.2014 VIDE ANNEX-G; QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEX-F MADE IN REF,NO.3/2010 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10524 WP No. 55667 of 2014 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL, MYSORE, WITH RESPECT TO ISSUE NO.1 REGARDING FAIRNESS OF DOMESTIC ENQUIRY DATED 5.3.2013; QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEX-G MADE IN REF.NO.3/2010 DATED 18.3.2014 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, AT MYSORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, is aggrieved by the award dated 18.03.2014 [Annexure-G] on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, while considering the reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] on whether permanent denial of one increment is fair and reasonable, has allowed the reference setting aside the Punishment Order dated 06.03.2009 holding that the respondent will be entitled to all benefits withheld consequent to the order which is set aside. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10524 WP No. 55667 of 2014 2. The Tribunal has first considered whether the enquiry against the respondent is fair, and neither the petitioner nor the respondent have let in oral evidence. However, the enquiry documents are marked as exhibits by their consent. The Tribunal, by its order dated 05.03.2013, has found that the enquiry is not fair and proper, and when the Tribunal has next extended an opportunity, the respondent has examined himself as WW.1 and a traffic Inspector with the petitioner is examined as MW.1. 3. On merits, the Tribunal, while examining whether the respondent proves that the findings in the departmental enquiry are perverse, has essentially opined that none of the parties to the material documents - Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.6 [which include Way Bill, statement of certain tickets with the passengers and checking report] are examined to speak about the contents of these documents and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10524 WP No. 55667 of 2014 therefore, the finding in the departmental enquiry is perverse. 4. The respondent is charged with not issuing tickets to two passengers and issuing tickets of lesser denomination to four passengers. The respondent is also charged with instigating the passengers and tearing up the enquiry report. Sri.Hareesh Bhandary T. emphasizes that these are established from Ex.M.1 to Ex.M.6, and when the respondent's culpability is established, the permanent denial of one increment, when there are antecedent allegations, would not be harsh. 5. However, the records are perused in the light of these contentions and the Tribunal's finding. With the Tribunal's finding that the enquiry is not fair and proper, there was onus on the petitioner to prove the charges. The petitioner has examined a Traffic Inspector [Mrs. S. Suma] as MW.1. This witness, in her cross-examination, has categorically - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10524 WP No. 55667 of 2014 stated that she has not witnessed the occurrence, and she is deposing from the records. The witness is silent about why those who were part of the inspection and the drawing up of the documents are not examined. In the absence of this crucial evidence, this Court must opine that the Tribunal's finding that the charges are not substantiated does not suffer any legal infirmity that would require interference. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr