- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 65162 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, HUBLI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI, PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. I.M. KITTUR BY LRS, CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 25/02/2012 1A. SMT. HAZRATABI W/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MASTANSOFA, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI - 580 024. 1B. SMT. FATIMA W/O. BASHASAB KAGADAGAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: HUDCO ADESHANAGAR, GADAG. 1C. SMT. SHAINAJBEGUM W/O. JAVED MANGALORE, YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: HORAKERI ONI, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI - 580 024. 1D. SMT. KHATEEJABI S/O. HAZARATALI KITTUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 1E. MD. HANIF S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, 1F. IMAMHUSSAIN S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PVT., SERVICE, 1G. NAZEERAHMAD S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS, RESPONDENT NOS.1D TO 1G ARE R/O: MASTANSOFA, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI- 580 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & G); R1B, R1D, R1E, R1F ARE SERVED; R1C-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 23/11/2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN APPLICATION NO.68/2002 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 23.11.2009 passed in application No.68/2002 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubbali1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present writ petition are that the respondent workman was an employee of the Corporation as an artisan. In the year 1987, the workman was allegedly illegally terminated from the services of the Corporation with effect from 17.02.1987. Being aggrieved, the workman raised dispute before the Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1987 in KID No.84/1988. 3. The Labour Court passed an award directing reinstatement of the workman in the service with 50% back wages, which was challenged by the Corporation in WP 1 Hereinafter for short ’Tribunal’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 No.36032/1997. This Court by its order dated 06.03.1998 dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ petition, taking note of the submission that the workman attained the age of superannuation on 03.05.1995, ordered that “denial of 50% back wages and payment of balance 50% back wages shall be restricted to the period from the date of order of dismissal till the date of superannuation”. It was further ordered that “50% of back wages shall be paid from the date of the order of dismissal till the date he attained the age of superannuation in addition to terminal benefits within 3 months”. 4. The workman filed an application under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act in Application No.68/2002 before the Labour Court contending that he was entitled to receive monetary benefits of Rs.44,408/- from the Corporation. It was the case of the workman that he was entitled to receive encashment of 8 months of earned leave and hence was entitled to receive Rs.44,408/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 5. The Corporation entered appearance before the Labour Court and filed its statement of objections. During the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman died and his legal representatives were brought on record. One of the legal representatives was examined as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked as evidence. The Corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Labour Court by its order dated 23.11.2009 allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.44,408/- within one month, failing which, the Corporation was required to pay the said amount with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the records. 7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order dated - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 06.03.1998 passed in WP No.36032/1997, the Corporation has paid the workman a sum of Rs. 28,982/- on 25.09.1998, Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.10.1998 and Rs. 20,988/- on 01.06.1999, thereby paying a cumulative sum of Rs.1,49,970-00. Hence, it is contended that no further amounts are required to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased workman. It is further contended that since the workman was not on actual duty, the question of paying earned leave does not arise. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the Corporation not having adduced any oral or documentary evidence, the Labour Court was justified in passing the order directing payment of a sum of Rs.44,408/- together with interest. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the judgment of Division bench of this Court in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 the case of the Divisional Controller Vs. Narendra S/o Mahantappa Minajagi2. 9. The submissions of both the learned counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. 10. It is pertinent to note here that apart from filing statement of objections, the Corporation has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence in the proceedings before the Labour Court. The Labour Court while considering the claim of the workman held as under : “11. In this case the date of dismissal is 16.2.87. The date of superannuation is 3.5.95. From the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation it works out more than 8 years. It is the case of the applicant that at the time of superannuation, 8 months earned leave were in his credit has to be accepted in view of non-production of any evidence by the respondent. The respondent is having document with him, but he has not produced any documents. Under the circumstances, the contention of the applicant that 2 WP No.100372/2018 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 he has 8 months earned leave in his credit at the time of superannuation has to be accepted. At the rate of Rs. 5,551/- for 8 months, it works out to Rs. 44,408/-. The writ petition was disposed on 6.3.98. The applicant filed this application in the year 2002. There is delay in filing the application. So the applicant is not entitled for interest claimed in the application.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The Division bench of this Court while considering a similar fact situation, wherein the quantum of back wages was required to be adjudicated has held as under: “5. What has been payable by way of backwages to the respondent employee even otherwise cannot be faltered since the appellant management has not placed on record any material to show that what is paid to a similarly circumstanced employee is less than what is directed to be paid to the respondent herein; true it is this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the learned Single Judge; however that per se does not justify a remand of the matter for consideration afresh; the appellant management being the custodian of the records of its employees would have produced the same to show the contrary; no reasons are assigned for not doing this exercise even at the appellate stage.” (emphasis supplied) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385 WP No. 65162 of 2011 12. Having regard to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court as noticed above and in view of the fact that the Corporation has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence, this Court refuses to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11