- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 65607 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI, (REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. MARUTI WATHARE , AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: NIL, RESIDENT OF: AT & POST: KAMATENATTI, TALUK: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO K.I.D. NO.37/2003 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI; QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN K.I.D. NO.37/2003 DATED:27/06/2008, VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER LIKE WRIT AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 27.06.2008 passed in KID.No.37/2003 on the file of Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubli1, whereunder, the petition filed by the respondent/workman under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment Act, 1987) Act of 19472, was partly allowed, the order of dismissal of the workman dated 13.05.2003 was set aside, and the workman was reinstated into service with continuity of service and benefits without back wages. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the workman was appointed as a trainee conductor on 20.10.1998. It was alleged that he did not report for duty for a total period of 443 days. An Articles of Charge was issued, which was replied by the workman, contending, inter alia, that he was unable to report for duty due to health issues. That although he had applied for medical leave, the management 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 treated his absence as unauthorized. In the domestic enquiry, the charges were held to be proved, and the workman was dismissed from service on 13.05.2003. Being aggrieved, the workman filed a petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the I.D. Act. 3. The Corporation entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the same. The Labour Court held Issue No.1 in favour of the Corporation, holding that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. However, the Labour Court noticed that the workman had submitted necessary documents i.e., doctor’s Certificate, medical reports, etc., with regard to the medical treatment he had undergone. Accordingly, the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 4. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that the medical certificate produced was not for the relevant period and that the order of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority ought not to have been interfered with by the Labour Court. 6. The Labour Court, while appreciating the material on record, has held that there were sufficient and reasonable grounds for the workman’s absence from duty from January- 2001 to September-2001. Further, the Labour Court recorded the following findings: 11. Those documents concerning sickness and treatment of petitioner is produced before the enquiring authority by the management. In the domestic enquiry the petitioner has given evidence to the effect that he was suffering from Typhoid as well as there was swelling in the liver. Despite of production of doctor's certificate, scrological report, etc., the enquiring authority did not believe its contents. Since, the petitioner did not apply for leave on medical grounds in January 2001, since, the doctor certificate is not enclosed along with the leave application, it is treated that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent on duty. Why the contents of the doctor's certificate and scrological report is not believed by the management is not at all discussed. No reasons are assigned for disbelieving the evidence of the petitioner produced in the domestic enquiry. It is not the case of the management that the security officers confidentially enquired the doctor as well as pathologist - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 and there was information that the documents produced by the petitioner are fabricated. Unless and until rebuttal evidence is produced by the management, there was no reason for the enquiring officer to reject the contents of the medical certificate as well as the scrological report. All the scrological reports are for the month of January 2001. It appears that the petitioner was sick and there was swelling in the liver and the doctor advised him to take rest. The doctor has specifically stated that he was hospitalised. These facts are not at all considered by the enquiring authority. Ofcourse, there is violation of rules, since the petitioner did not apply for leave on medical grounds in January 2001 itself. But, that alone can be a ground to show that he intentionally or deliberately remained absent on duty. In fact, the petitioner ought to have applied for leave on medical grounds in January 2001 itself, but there was negligence in not applying for leave on time. Therefore, the petitioner has succeeded in establishing that there was sufficient and reasonable grounds for remaining absent on duty from January 2001 to September 2001. 12. Now, coming to the quantum of punishment is concerned, the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice and other serious discascs. The management ought to have considered these facts sympathetically. There should be humanc approach in such cases. Merely because, leave is not applied in January 2001 on medical grounds and merely because, the doctor’s certificate is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 not enclosed, that alone should not be a ground for terminating the petitioner from service. 13. The petitioner has appointed as a conductor in 1998 and he can not be a trainee till 2003. His services are deemed to have been confirmed after completion of 180 days of service in the establishment of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner can not be treated as a trainee conductor for five years and then terminate him from service. The alleged misconduct of absence on duty is not so serious so as to terminate him from service, particularly, when he was suffering from Typhoid and other liver discasc. Therefore, the order of dismissal of petitioner from service on the grounds of unauthorised absence is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 14. It is true that petitioner did not seek leave on medical grounds in January 2001 itself. There is violation of rules and regulations of respondent management. The petitioner is not a chronic absentee. Of course, on account of unauthorised absence of duty, the routine work of the Transport Company has been affected. But, generally, the respondent corporation will have alternative workers to carry on the duty. The badali workers and the casual workers working in the establishment of the respondent will be entrusted with the work whenever the regular workman remains absent on duty. Since, the absence on duty was not deliberate and intentional, the misconduct should not be viewed seriously. The petitioner is middle-aged person. He has to maintain himself and his family members. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 specifically pleaded that the petitioner has no other source of income. He has to maintain three children and an old-aged mother. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. By way of punishment for his negligent act in not complying the rules, the petitioner should not be paid wages. Since, the petitioner has not worked from January 2001 to November 2001, he is not entitled for any wages and consequently for any monetary benefits. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of misconduct alleged against the petitioner, it is just and necessary to award continuity of service but, without any backwages and other monetary benefits. Hence, for all these reasons, the order of punishment passed by the management is hereby set aside. The management is not justified in terminating the petitioner from service on 13.05.2003. Hence, I answer second issue accordingly. (emphasis supplied) 7. It is forthcoming that the workman had produced necessary material to demonstrate that he was suffering from typhoid and other liver related ailments. Hence, the finding of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal is just and proper and does not warrant interference. However, while directing reinstatement, the Labour Court did not award back - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 wages but granted continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 8. It is pertinent to note here that the respondent/workman is served but unrepresented. 9. This Court, vide interim order dated 10.04.2012, granted an interim stay of the award passed by the Labour Court. The workman has neither reported for duty nor made any attempt to seek vacation of the interim stay. It is clear that ever since his dismissal on 13.05.2003, the workman has not rendered any service. Hence, it is just and proper that the award of the Labour Court be modified by directing that the workman shall not be entitled to consequential benefits, while upholding the remaining portions of the award. 10. In view of the fact that the workman has already attained the age of superannuation, and by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, the award of the Labour Court insofar as it relates to reinstatement would not come into effect, it is just and proper that the writ petition be disposed of by - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12732 WP No. 65607 of 2011 directing that the terminal benefits of the workman shall be paid within a period of six weeks from today. 11. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed; ii) The award dated 27.06.2008 passed in KID.No.37/2003 on the file of Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Hubli, is modified only to the extent of holding that the respondent/workman shall also not be entitled to consequential benefits. The award of the Labour Court in all other respects remained unaltered; iii) The retirement benefits of the respondent shall be paid by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2