- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO.67165 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC BELGAUM DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: B. Y. PATIL, CONDUCTOR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: SERVICE, C/O. KST WORKERS UNION, H.NO.153, VINAYAKA NAGAR, BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD MADE IN I.D.NO.18/2008 DATED 07.05.2010 (ANNEXURE-'A') PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI AND ETC. YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 07.05.2010 passed in ID No.18/2008 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that, the respondent, who was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner – Corporation was issued with the charge sheet dated 12.10.1999 alleging that, when he was conducting the Bus plying on Belagavi – Yallamma Hills route, it was found that out of the passengers traveling in the Bus, he had issued four tickets of Rs.20/- denomination and four tickets of Rs.8/- denomination to the passengers traveling from stage No.1 to 15 with a wrong punching. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet the respondent – workman submitted his reply stating that he had issued tickets to all passengers and that, none of the passengers were 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 traveling without tickets. However, due to jerk of the Bus, the same might be the cause of the wrong punching of the tickets, but it is not with the bad intention and that he has not committed the misconduct as alleged. 4. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry and the report was submitted alleging that the misconduct was proved. The Disciplinary Authority, on the basis of the enquiry report passed the punishment order by reducing the basic pay into two incremental stages permanently and the suspension period was treated as “not on duty”. 5. Being aggrieved, at the instance of the workman the said punishment order was referred for conciliation and the conciliation having failed, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472. The workman filed his claim petition seeking to set aside the punishment order dated 29.01.2003 and to direct the Corporation to pay all the withheld arrears to him. The Corporation filed its counter to the claim 2 Herein after referred to as the “ID Act’ for short. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 statement. The Tribunal by its award dated 07.05.2010, allowed the reference and passed the following order: “ORDER The reference made by the Government of Karnataka U/Sec.10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in I.D.No.18/2008 is allowed. The punishment order passed by the second party respondent against the first party bearing No.NWKT/BGM/DP/T-1941(99)/533 dated 29-1-2003 is set aside. The second party is directed to calculate the arrears and to pay the same to the first party within four weeks from the date of this award coming into force on its publication. Parties to bear their own costs.” 6. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the Corporation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the domestic enquiry having been found to be fair and proper, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the order of punishment. Hence, learned counsel seeks for allowing the writ petition and granting the reliefs as sought for. 8. The respondent – workman has been served and is unrepresented. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 9. The question that arises for consideration is as to “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition?” 10. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed in as much as the charge that has been alleged against the workman, the holding of the enquiry and imposition of the punishment as noticed above. The Tribunal appreciating the relevant facts situation noticed the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2089/1986 by placing reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Vachajibhail Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and another3, wherein it is held that “wrong punching” is not found as misconduct either in the Standing Order or in the Service Regulations, considered the case of the workman. 11. In this context, it is also noticed by the Tribunal that, the Corporation has also not placed on record that in the Standing Orders or Service Regulations “wrong punching” is found as misconduct. Further the Tribunal while noticing the said 3 (1985) 1 LLJ 527 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 charge made against the workman, has recorded the following finding: “14. ……..……………. The alleged misconduct against the first party is that instead of he punching the above mentioned tickets from stage No.1 to 15, he has punched from stage No.1 to 20, it was with a bad intention he did so. It is not disputed that when this bus was intercepted all with passengers were found with tickets and there were no ticketless passengers and it is contended stating that the some correct entries were not made in the way bill and same is not the material allegation against him. The material allegation against the first party is that he intentionally wrong punched the tickets with an intention to re-issue the same. In the instant case there is no question of taking back these tickets from the passengers which they have already issued and also there is no allegation of re-issuing of tickets. The defence of the first party is that due to jerk of the bus there was a light punching, but he had not intentionally wrong punched, but due to jerk of the there may be a some mis-punching.” (emphasis supplied) 12. It is clear from aforementioned that, the Tribunal has noticed that the workman was required to punch the tickets from stage No.1 to 15. However, he has punched the same from stage No.1 to 20. Further it was noticed that when the Bus was intercepted, all the passengers were found with tickets and there were no ticket less passengers. It is also pertinent to note that the allegation made against the workman is that, he intentionally wrongly punch the tickets, so as to reissue them. Noticing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10776 WP No. 67165 of 2011 same, the Tribunal has held that “there is no question of taking back the tickets from passengers which has already been issued and there is no allegation of reissuing the tickets”. 13. It is clear from the aforementioned that, the misconduct alleged against the workman is not one where the punishment as imposed was required to be awarded. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment order dated 29.01.2003. The petitioner – Corporation has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the Tribunal is in any manner is perverse, capricious and liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. In view of the above, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 14. The writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner – Corporation to calculate the arrears and pay the same to the respondent – workman within six weeks from today. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE EM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14