- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 19449 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11091 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) IN WP No. 19449/2015 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, MYSORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE) AND: GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE C R PURTTASWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. PUTTALAKSHMI W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. NAGESH S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O NO. 262, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 SHANKARALINGE GOWDA BADAVANE I CROSS, RAMABAI NAGARA MYSURU - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L. SHEKAR., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUITON OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 27.08.2014 IN REF NO.105/2008 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE VIDE ANNEXURE-M. IN WP NO. 11091/2017 BETWEEN: GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE C R PURTTASWAMY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS 1. SMT. PUTTALAKSHMI W/O LATE GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 2. NAGESH S/O LATE GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O NO. 262, SHANKARALINGE GOWDA BHADAVANE I CROSS, RAMABAI NAGARA MYSURU - 570 008. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.L. SHEKAR ., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 AND: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REP BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSORE. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT MYSORE, DATED 27.8.2014 PASSED IN REF NO.105/2008 UNDER ANNEXURE-Q SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF 85% OF REMAINING BACKWAGES TO THE PETITIONERS. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These writ petitions are filed calling in question the Award dated 27.08.2014 in Reference No.105/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The writ petition by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 the concerned Transport Corporation is in W.P.No.19449/2015 and the writ petition in W.P.No.11091/2017 is by the workman [who is now deceased and represented by his legal representatives]. The Tribunal by the impugned Award dated 27.08.2014 has allowed the Reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, 'the ID Act'] modifying the Transport Corporation's punishment order dated 31.03.2005 directing the Transport Corporation to pay to the workman 15% of the back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefits for the period between 21.03.1994 and 31.03.2005. 2. If the Transport Corporation is aggrieved by the Tribunal's directions to pay 15% of the back wages for the aforesaid period with consequential benefits and continuity of service, the workman is aggrieved by the denial of entire back wages for this period. This Court, before adverting to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 the merits of the rival contentions, must encapsulate the circumstances leading to the Transport Corporation's order dated 31.03.2005, and such encapsulation is as stated hereafter. 3. The Transport Corporation has served the workman with the charge sheet alleging that on the fateful day, he took custody of a bus out of the Depot without authority [without entering the details in the Depot Register] and dashed it against his co-workers resulting in the death of one and injuries to the other. This Court must observe that the charge sheet does not allege intention in the workman to cause death or injury; it also does not refer to negligence in him. The workman has contested the charges contending, amongst others, that he was not at the depot because he was injured in an accident, and that he had approached the concerned police with information about such incident. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 4. The dependents of the deceased and the injured [in the accident caused by the workman] have filed claim petitions with the concerned Claims Tribunal alleging negligence against the workman in driving the vehicle and causing the accident. The Transport Corporation and the workman have filed their version, and in fact, the workman has adopted the Statement of Objection filed by the Transport Corporation asserting that the workman was not negligent. The Transport Corporation has paid the dependants/injured co-worker compensation as decided by the concerned Claims Tribunal. 5. In the meantime, the Transport Corporation, by its order dated 21.03.1994, has dismissed the workman from service and the Reference at his instance under Section 10 of the ID Act is unsuccessful with the Tribunal rejecting such Reference by its order dated 23.07.1998. The workman has successfully called in question these - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 two orders in W.P.No.33984/1998. This Court has disposed of this writ petition on 02.11.2000. This Court has allowed this petition by its order, which in its material part reads as under: "9. Normally, when an order of reinstatement is passed the question of back wages has also got to be gone into. On the state of the record, since the proceedings have been quashed on a ground of procedural non- compliance, the option is open to the Corporation to hold a fresh enquiry if it so desires and if the Corporation exercises that option which they have to do within a period of thirty days from today, if the management does not take any decision or if the decision is that no fresh enquiry will be held then the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement with 30% back wages." 6. The Transport Corporation has called this Court's order in question in an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.7810/2000, which is disposed of on 17.11.2023. The Division Bench has dismissed the intra Court appeal subject to certain observations. It - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 will be relevant for the present purposes to record that on behalf of the workman it is stated before the Division Bench that the workman, with a view to settle the dispute once for all, will suffer punishment of denial of two increments with cumulative effect and also lose back wages subject to the caveat that this stand must not be construed as admission. This statement on behalf of the workman is taken on record by the Division Bench and it is made part of this order. 7. The Transport Corporation, after the proceedings before the Division Bench, has held fresh inquiry upon serving the petitioner a fresh charge sheet. The inquiry is concluded with the Inquiry Officer filing the Report dated 20.08.2004 holding that the charges against the workman [i.e. taking custody of the vehicle without authorization, driving it out of the depot without entering the register and causing the accident resulting in the death and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 injuries] are proved. After extending an opportunity to the workman to show cause against such Report, and in the light of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, by the impugned order dated 31.03.2005, has directed the petitioner's reinstatement but without back wages and other benefits. 8. The Disciplinary Authority has found that the workman will not be entitled to any benefit between 21.03.1994 [the date of first dismissal] and the date of reinstatement. In issuing this order, the Disciplinary Authority has recalled the earlier order of dismissal dated 21.03.1994. The petitioner, being unsatisfied with this outcome, has sought for a Reference resulting in the subject Reference with the Tribunal. The workman is taken back into duty in 2005, and he has attained superannuation in 2007. The outcome in the present writ petition will require the Transport Corporation to rework the entitlement - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 and pay the difference to the workman's legal representatives. 9. Ms. Renuka H.R., the learned counsel for the Transport Corporation, canvasses that the Tribunal, after having found that the inquiry was not fair and holding that the charges against the workman are proved, could not have interfered with the punishment of denial of back wages, consequential benefits and continuity of service, and emphasizes that: [i] unlike in the case with retrenchment, the back wages cannot follow as a matter of fact, [ii] the Courts/ Tribunals [including the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India] which can interfere with the punishment of dismissal without disturbing the finding on the guilt of misconduct, will not typically interfere with the quantum of punishment, - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 [iii] the Tribunal should have examined the workman's grievance with the denial of back wages, consequential benefits and continuity with service in the backdrop of this proposition and that the workman had not worked during the period between 21.03.1994 and the date of reinstatement. Ms. Renuka H.R also relies upon the statement made on behalf of the workman in the intra Court appeal as aforesaid about his willingness to give up the claim for back wages to achieve quietus. 10. Sri L. Shekar, the learned counsel for the workman's legal representatives, submits that the statement in the intra - Court appeal in W.A.No.7810/2000 must be confined to the context of the disposal in the writ appeal and it cannot be relied upon when a fresh inquiry is held after the earlier proceedings. The learned counsel contends that with the Disciplinary Authority deciding to - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 reinstate the workman should have allowed 100% back wages with continuity of service and consequential benefits and that should be the consequence in law. 11. On the question of law, Ms. Renuka H.R submits that back wages must flow when there is retrenchment cannot be applied when there is dismissal or termination or removal in view of the decision of the Apex Court in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K. P. Agarwal and another1 and that it cannot be gainsaid that there cannot be a direction for back wages or continuity of service or consequential benefits as a necessary consequence of reinstatement even where there is interference on the quantum of punishment without disturbing the finding on the misconduct. The learned counsel argues that these propositions must be applied in the present case as well where the Tribunal was examining the denial of 1 (2007)2 SCC 433 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 back wages, continuity in service and consequential benefits as a punishment instead of dismissal or termination or removal. 12. This Court must opine that the exposition by the Apex Court in the afore decision as canvassed by M.s Renuka should serve as an effective benchmark to test the Transport Corporation's grievance with the Tribunal awarding 15% as back wages, and this Court must examine: Whether the Tribunal should have allowed the Reference in No.105/2008 with 100% back wages and with continuity in service and consequential benefits. 13. The Transport Corporation's specific case against the petitioner is that he took custody of the vehicle and drove it out of the depot without authorization and necessary entries and deliberately caused the accident bringing about the death of a person and injuries to others. The Tribunal, rejecting - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 the workman's defense that he had not reported to duty at the time of accident, has found that the Transport Corporation has successfully established that the workman was negligent in bringing about the accident. This Court does not find any reason to opine that the Tribunal has erred in concluding that the Transport Corporation has successfully established that the workman was negligent in bringing about the accident and must suffer some penalty. 14. The circumstances that have prevailed with the Tribunal in granting 15% of the back wages with continuity in service and consequential benefits are that the proceedings have continued for a period more than a decade and the Transport Corporation could have cut short this litigation by instituting fresh inquiry proceedings as permitted by this Court in W.P. No. 33984/1998 but has challenged such order and that the workman is - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 ultimately reinstated by the orders of the Transport Corporation on 31.03.2005, but without any benefit. 15. These indeed are crucial circumstances, and these would be significant insofar as the workman's entitlement to continuity in service and consequential benefits. This Court is not persuaded to opine that there is any perversity in the Tribunal granting continuity in service and consequential benefits to the workman for the period between 21.03.1994 and the date of reinstatement. 16. The next question for consideration is whether this Court must interfere with the Tribunal's decision to grant 15% of the back wages for the period between 21.03.1994 and the date of reinstatement. The subsequent inquiry proceedings resulting in the order of reinstatement of the workman vide order dated 31.03.2005 is definitely because of the outcome in the Intra Court Appeal in W.A. No.7810/2000. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 17. On behalf of the workman, it is categorically stated thus: "……..At this stage, Sri Naik, after taking instructions from the respondent who is before the Court, submitted that without prejudice the contention of the respondent that the charges levelled against him is misconceived, the respondent with a view to settle the dispute with the appellant once for all, would be willing to suffer a punishment of deprivation of two annual increments with cumulative effect and also the back wages as ordered by the learned single Judge till the date of his reinstatement. He also submitted that the statement made to accept the punishment of deprivation of two increments with cumulative effect and back wages should not be understood as the respondent admitting his guilt. The statement made by Sri Naik, as stated above, is placed on record." This Court cannot but opine that the workman has had the benefit of this stand with the disposal of the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 earlier writ proceedings resulting in initiation of the fresh enquiry which has culminated in the Transport Corporation's order for reinstatement. If the workman had agreed to give up back wages in the writ proceedings, this must have its play, though detrimental. The workman’s willingness to give up back wages has not been held against him to hold that he is guilty. 18. On a holistic consideration of all the circumstances, including the exposition by the apex Court in G. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K. P. Agarwal and another supra, this Court must opine that the payment of back wages need not be a necessary consequence of reinstatement, and because of the workman's own stand on willingness to give up back wages, this Court must opine that the decision to grant even 15% back wages would be an irregular exercise of jurisdiction that would warrant - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 interference by this Court. In the light of the afore, the following:- ORDER [A] The writ petition in WP 11091/2017 is rejected and the writ petition in WP 19449/2015 is allowed in part modifying the Tribunal's impugned order denying the benefit of 15% back wages for the period between 21.03.1994 and the date of workman's reinstatement but directing the Transport Corporation to pay all financial benefits that would flow with the benefit of continuity in service and consequential benefits. [B] The legal representatives of the workman are reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order with the Transport Corporation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt a certified copy thereof and directing the Transport Corporation to compute and pay the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:12850 WP No. 19449 of 2015 C/W WP No. 11091 of 2017 difference within three [3] months from the date of receipt of such certified copy. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA,NV