- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 64888 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI: 580 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: RUDRAGOUDA S/O. MUDIGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: EX. DRIVER, R/O. JALIHAL (B.N.), POST: BANANAGUDDA, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) 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:07/11/2008 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR IN REF.NO.3/2007 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 06.03.2003 passed in KID No.39/2001 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent was employed with the petitioner/Corporation as a driver since 1986. Alleging that the respondent was absent from duty from 12.02.95 to 15.07.95 without authorization and without submitting any leave application, articles of charge were issued against him. Consequently, the respondent/workman was terminated from service by order dated 27.10.95. Being aggrieved, the workman initiated proceedings under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, which was dismissed vide award dated 06.03.2003. Thereafter, the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 workman approached the Government seeking initiation of conciliation proceedings, which was refused by order dated 17.05.2005. The said refusal was challenged by the workman in W.P.No.24390/2005. This Court vide order dated 20.01.2006, allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 17.05.205 passed by the State Government, and remanded the matter to the State Government to reconsider the workman’s request in accordance with law. Consequent to the same, the State Government made a reference under Section 10(1)(C)(D) of the I.D. Act, in Reference No.3/2007, wherein the workman filed a claim petition, and the Corporation entered appearance in the said proceeding. The Labour Court vide order dated 07.11.2008, partly allowed the claim petition and passed the following: ORDER “The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed partly. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 The order of removal dated 27.10.1995 is set aside. The respondent is directed to reinstate the services of petitioner on production of valid D.L. with continuity of service from the date of reinstatement and consequential benefits. The prayer regarding back wages is rejected. The period from 27.10.1995 till today shall be treated as leave without pay.” 3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is an enormous unexplained delay on the part of the workman in seeking reference, and that the award of the Labour Court setting aside the termination is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. It is further contended that the workman was a habitual absentee. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the workman justified the award passed by the Labour Court and seeks for dismissal of the present writ petition. 6. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material available on record. The only point that arises for consideration in the present petition is, “Whether the award dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Labour Court is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition?” 7. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the workman was dismissed from service on 27.10.1995. It is further undisputed that the proceedings initiated by the workman, including the filing of KID No.39/2001, making a representation to the Government, and requesting conciliation proceeding, which was refused by order 17.05.2005 as well as the filing of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 W.P.No.24390/2005, culminating in the order dated 20.01.2006, are all matters of record and are undisputed. 8. Consequent to the disposal of W.P.No.24390/2005, and pursuant to the reference made by the Government under Section 10(1)(C)(D) of the I.D. Act, the workman filed a claim petition and the Corporation filed its objection. The Labour Court thereafter framed the following issues: 1. “Whether the D.E held against the claimant is fair and proper? 2. Whether the respondent is justified in dismissing the claimant from the service by an order dated: 27.10.1995? 3. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled to?” 9. The Labour Court, while considering the points for reference as well as the issues framed, held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, as the enquiry papers were not produced by the Corporation. Subsequently, while considering the aspect of delay, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 Labour Court took note of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 20.01.2006 passed in W.P.No.24309/2005, and upon considering the other material on record, recorded a finding that the dispute is still subsisting and that the delay is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. The said findings recorded are as under: “14. Point No.5 & 6 and issue No.2 & 3: Both parties admitted that, petitioner was absent from duties from 12.2.1995 to 15.7.1995, petitioner contended that, he was suffering from high fever, he fell ill, his wife was also sick, she succumbed to the same, there are nobody to look after his family. His leave application was not considered by the respondent. Whereas, respondent contended that, petitioner had not filed any leave application, nor got permission from the competent authority, the petitioner violated the leave rules 1964 this is nothing but misconduct. Whereas, MW-1/Mahiboob Basha filed his affidavit later on he has not turned up this witness was not subjected to cross-examination. Respondent examined MW-2/Palaxi who deposed in the affidavit regarding reiterating the objection averments, this witness was cross-examined at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 length. The petitioner filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as WW-1 he reiterated the petition averments in the affidavit and contended that, he filed leave application as he was suffering from high fever. Ex.W-9 is a latter submitted by, the petitioner to the Labour Commissioner, Ex. W- 5 to 8 are postal acknowledgements having issued the letters to Labour Commissioner. Ex.M-4 is copy of the letter issued by respondent calling upon petitioner to come and join duties within 48 hours dated 17.7.1995. Ex.M-5 is copy of the charge sheet, Ex.M-6 is copy of the order having dismissed the petitioner from service, Ex.M-7 is copy of report submitted by Depot Manager, Badami, Ex.M-8 is copy of postal acknowledgment and Ex.M-9 is order sheet of proceedings. Further in the order of KID.39/01 marked at Ex.M-1 it is observed by this court that, is clear that there is unexplained inordinate delay of more than 5 and 1/2 years. Even though respondent failed to prove the charges leveled against the claimant in view of unexplained inordinate delay the court proceeded to pass the order, so as per the discussions, version of petitioner and respondent in previous case itself respondent failed to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner, and in the present case on hand also these charges were not proved, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 original records regarding enquiry and medical certificate etc, are not produced by both the parties. ………….. As per this authority removal from service for alleged misconduct and removal is penal and stigmatic is not sustainable. Whereas, in the opinion of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the removal of employee from the service on the ground of absenteeism is disproportionate, shocking and excessive. Hence for the above reasons and discussions, I am of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement of service. Further petitioner was removed from service in the year 1995, he filed KID in the year 2001 parties litigated before the concillation officer, Govt. of Karnataka as well as before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka now we are in the year 2009 there is gap of 14 years during these litigations, if back wages are awarded certainly respondent will be put to heavy loss and inconvenience and petitioner is not entitled for back wages on the principle of no work no wages, he is not entitled for continuity of service of this 14 years. Hence I am of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement of service with continuity of service from the date of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 reinstatement subject to production of valid D.L. Hence I answer the Point No.5 and Issue No.2 in the Negative;” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that the Labour Court has noticed the workman’s contention that he was absent from duty from 12.02.95 to 15.7.95, since he was suffering from high fever, and his wife was also ill and subsequently passed away, leaving no one to take care for his family. It was further specifically contended by the workman that his leave application was not considered. It was the contention put forth by the Corporation that the workman had not submitted any leave application. The Labour Court took note of Ex.M9, a letter submitted by the workman to the Labour Commissioner, and held that that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges leveled against the workman. However, in view of the inordinate delay, the Labour Court, while setting aside the removal order dated - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 27.10.1995, directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, but denied back wages. The Labour Court also directed that the period from 27.10.1995 till the date of the award be treated as leave without pay. 11. It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that the charge against the workman is that he was absent from the duty between 12.02.95 to 15.07.95, i.e., for a period of 5 months. In his testimony before the Labour Court the workman set out the reasons for his absence, inter alia, that he was unwell, his wife was also sick, and she eventually died. He has further stated that there was nobody to look after his family during that period. A communication addressed by the workman to the Labour Commissioner in this regard was also produced and marked as Ex.M9. 12. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the enquiry was not fair and proper, since no records of the enquiry was furnished by the Corporation in the proceedings - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after appreciation of material on record has categorically held that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges. Although it is the contention of the Corporation that the workman was a habitual absentee, no records have been produced by the Corporation with regard in prior charges if any, that have been alleged against the workman. 13. Although it is the vehement contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that there was inordinate delay on the part of the workman in challenging the dismissal, the various proceedings initiated by the workman have already been noticed hereinabove. Furthermore, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the dispute raised by the workman is not a stale claim. 14. In this context, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of North Eastern Karnataka R. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 T. Corpn Vs. Ashappa and Another3. However the said case is distinguishable on facts, as in that case the period of absence was more than three years. 15. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and others4, would also not aid the case of the petitioner, since the factual matrix in the said case is wholly different from the factual matrix of the present case, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, was considering the applicability of the principle of proportionality. 16. It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that the period of absence by the workman, who was employed as a driver, was approximately five months, and that there was no prior charges leveled against him. The claim of the workman has rightly been found to be 3 AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2164 4 AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1377 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 not stale. Therefore, the contention regarding delay, as raised by the petitioner, is not liable to be accepted. 17. The Labour Court has rightly appreciated the relevant factual matrix of the matter and has ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits, while rightly rejecting the claim for back wages and directing that the period from 27.10.1995 till the date of the award be treated as leave without pay. The order of the Labour Court is just and proper and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any ground warranting interference by this Court in the present writ petition. 18. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the point framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 19. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent/workman submits that the workman has already attained the age of superannuation. In view of the same, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing that the financial consequences that would be accruable to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426 WP No. 64888 of 2010 the respondent/workman shall be paid by the petitioner/Corporation as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4