- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 59330 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 24005 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 59330/2013 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION, KIMCO BUILDING, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560026 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: A.C.CHANNEGOWDA S/O CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O ANCHIPURA, VIRUPAKSHA HOBLI, ELETHOTADAHALLI POST, CHANNAPATNA TALUK- 562 160. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K SRINIVASA.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 8.1.2013 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D. NO.505/2006 VIDE ANN-C IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE AWARD OF 25% OF THE BACKWAGES. IN WP NO. 24005/2021 BETWEEN: SRI A C CHANNE GOWDA S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, EX DRIVER NO.9676 CHANNAPATNA DEPOT R/AT ANCHIPURA ELETHOTADAHALLI POST CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA (BENGALURU RURAL) DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION PRESENTLY CHANGED AS RAMANAGAR DIVISION DIVISION OFFICE, BUS STAND BUILDING RAMANAGARA TOWN AND DISTRICT - 562 159. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H R RENUKA.,ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE AWARD DATED 08.01.23 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AT BANGALORE IN ID NO.505/2006 PLACED AT ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION SO FAR CONCERNED TO THE DENIAL OF 75 PERCENT BACK WAGES. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These writ petitions are filed by the Employer [the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation - for short, 'the Transport Corporation'] and a Workman calling in question the Award dated 08.01.2013 in I.D. No.505/2006 on the file of the I Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Labour Court']. The writ petition by the Transport Corporation is in W.P. No.59330/2013 and the writ petition by the workman is in W.P. No.24005/2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 2. The Labour Court has set aside the dismissal Order dated 27.06.2006 directing the petitioner-workman's reinstatement with continuity of service and all consequential benefits awarding 25% of the back wages from the date of the dismissal till the date of reinstatement. If the Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the Award of 25% of the back wages as aforesaid, so is the workman who essentially contends that because similarly placed workmen have been reinstated and with 50% of the back wages, he must also be granted similar benefit. 3. The brief statement of facts is that on 07.08.1998, the Drivers and Conductors at Gundlupet Depot have gone on a strike raising a claim for overtime, bata and other benefits. The petitioner-workman and eight others are served with the Articles of Charges stating that they have instigated other loyal and willing workmen to stay away from the work resulting in cancellation of 23 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 routes for 3,630 kilometers resulting in financial loss of Rs.32,670/- to the Transport Corporation. 4. The workmen have denied the allegations resulting in a common enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, by the Report dated 30.07.1999, has opined that the Charges against the workmen are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, proposing to differ with the Enquiry Officer's Report, has caused the notice to the workmen. The Disciplinary Authority, with the workman responding, has dismissed the workman by Order dated 27.06.2006. 5. It is undisputed that the Charges against some of the co-workmen are given up, or when they are called in question the Disciplinary Authority's Order before the Appellate Authority, such workmen have been directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages and such decision has been confirmed in the corresponding writ proceedings. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 6. The workman has filed a claim under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] raising a dispute calling in question the Disciplinary Authority’s Order dated 27.06.2006. The workman in the proceedings has conceded fairness in the Inquiry, and the Labour Court has permitted the parties to lead evidence. The Labour Court, on considering the evidence on record, has opined that the Disciplinary Authority, notwithstanding the law, has been perfunctory in its reasoning. 7. The Labour Court, on the question of back wages, has reasoned thus: "24. The first party is dismissed from the service on 27.06.2006. It is elicited before the Court that the first party after his termination from the service on 7.8.1998 under the impugned order is totally unemployed and not having any income at all. Considering the date on which the first party is terminated from the service and considering the present date, it can't be believed that the first party is having - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 no source of income. The first party without income would not have survived or looked after his family. This therefore shows that the first party should be having alternate work from which he is earning reasonably though not exorbitantly. Further, the first party has not adduced any evidence to show that he is not gainfully employed after his termination from the service. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper for the court to grant 25% of the back wages to the first party from the date of his dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The first party however is entitled to the continuity of service and other consequential benefits." 8. Ms. H R Renuka, the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, submits that this Court must consider that the petitioner-workman had filed a claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act instead of filing an appeal, and if indeed he had filed an appeal, there would have been an earlier adjudication of the dispute. The learned counsel emphasizes that this would be the crucial circumstance in view of the fact that the workman - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 who is removed from service in the month of June 2006, is directed to be reinstated by the impugned Award in the month of January 2013. As against these assertions, Sri K. Srinivasa, the learned counsel for the workman, submits that the Transport Corporation cannot dispute that similarly placed workmen have been reinstated with 50% back wages, and the learned counsel submits if similarly placed workmen have been reinstated with 50% back wages, with all the circumstances being similar, this workman cannot be treated differently. 9. These rival submissions on the merits of the Labour Court's decision to grant 25% of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement, are considered in the light of the Labour Court's finding that the workman is out of service for over six years, he is a family man, and without a source of income he could not support himself or his family. The Labour Court, has inferred, from these circumstances, that he must be in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13785 WP No. 59330 of 2013 C/W WP No. 24005 of 2021 alternative work earning a reasonable income though not a similar income. There is some contradiction in the Labour Court's observation on the evidence let in by the workman on his employment from the year 2006, but given the circumstances in which the Labour Court has considered the question of back wages while allowing consequential benefits and continuity of service, this Court is not persuaded to opine that such finding is perverse. Hence, both the writ petitions are rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-