- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.146898 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: MOHISIN S/O. ABDUL HAMID BILAGI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL, AT POST: KALYANNAGAR, NEAR LAXMAN DODDAMANI HOUSE, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA, KALYANANAGAR – 586 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI AHAMED ALI J. RAHIMANSHA, ADVOCATE) AND: DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N W K R T C, DIVISIONAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI – 580 021. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S.L.MATTI, ADVOCATE) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF ANNEXURE A. TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN K.I.D.49/2017 DATED 11.11.2019 BY REJECTION OF CLAIM OF PETITIONER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT ANNEXURE A AS WELL AS TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REMOVAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE B DATED 2/5/2017 NO. VAKARASA: HUVI: NEMAKA: GAIHA: 21(16)799 AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i) Call for records of Annexure-A. ii) To set aside the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi in K.I.D.49/2017 dated 11.11.2019 by rejection of claim of petitioner for reinstatement at Annexure-A as well as to set aside the order of removal passed by the respondent at Annexure-B dated 2/5/2017 no. Vakarasa: huvi: nemaka: gaiha:21(16)799 in the interest of justice. iii) Any order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit be granted. 2. It is contented that the petitioner was appointed as a trainee conductor-cum-driver on 09/12/2015. On account of unauthorized absence, he was dismissed from service by the Corporation on 02/05/2017. The petitioner trainee, having raised a dispute in KAD No.49/2017, the Labour Court rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking to set aside order of termination passed by the respondent Corporation, on the ground that the workman was a trainee driver cum conductor and as such could be dismissed at - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 any time. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission Sri. S. L. Matti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, is that the respondent being a trainee, the petitioner Corporation could dismiss the said trainee at any time. The said trainee cannot be considered to be a workman, and further, though until confirmation of appointment, such conductor-cum-driver could not raise a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, in this regard, relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2024 in W.A.No.100654/2017 (The Management of NWKRTC Vs. Gangaramsingh). 4. Sri. Ahamed Ali J. Rahimansha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner workman, would rely upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters (Basanagouda Vs. The - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 Divisional Controller) and submits that the judgment in W.A.No.100654/2017 was rendered on the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.100556/2015, which, in turn was rendered on the basis of the judgment in W.A.No.100383/2014. All three judgments have been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 25.04.2024 in W.A.No.100878/2017 and connected matters and the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion that, in all those judgments, the aspect of definition of 'workman' had not been considered and it is on the basis of the submissions made by the Road Transport Corporation that the workman is a trainee, orders were passed. 5. The Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters has passed a detailed judgment of nearly 90 pages. Considering all these aspects and negating the contentions of the Road Transport Corporation that a trainee could be appointed and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 has also categorically came to the conclusion that the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Road Transport Corporation do not provide for the recruitment of trainee conductor-cum-drivers. Any such recruitment would have to be on a permanent basis only. 6. Thus once the respondent was appointed as a Driver- cum-Conductor, he could not be said to be a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor on that ground it is submitted that the decision of the Labour Court is proper and correct. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent and perused the papers. 8. In view of the Judgement dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017, this aspect having been considered in detail and the coordinate bench having come to a categorical conclusion that there could be no appointment of a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor and training during the course of employment would - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168 WP No. 146898 of 2020 not make that person a trainee Driver-cum- Conductor. 9. The same would be applicable to the present case also. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi in KID No.49/2017 dated 11.11.2019 at Annexure-A is set aside. iii. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court, Hubballi, for fresh consideration in terms of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017, on merits. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50