- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48997 WP No. 9688 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 9688 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. P.PHILOMINA RAJ, S/O. PAL RAJ, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, 3RD CROSS, CHRISTIAN COLONY, SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU-560021. (DRIVER BADGE NO.8247) …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RADHA R., ADVOCATE) AND: THE CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48997 WP No. 9688 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Smt.Radha R., counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. H.R. Renuka, counsel for the respondent, have appeared in person. 2. The award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, dated 15.12.2020, in I.D.NO.78/2014 is called into question in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. 4. Counsel Smt. R. Radha, in presenting her arguments, strenuously urged that the Corporation had given six increments; however, these were withdrawn without notifying the petitioner. By way of reply, Counsel Smt. H. Renuka submits that the Labor Court did not award consequential benefits; hence, she justified the corporation's action. 5. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48997 WP No. 9688 of 2021 1. STATE OF PUNJAB VS RAFIQ MASIH REPORTED IN (2015) 4 SCC 334 2. CANARA BANK AND OTHERS VS G RAJ (A.S.279 OF 2019-THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS). Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the following decisions. 1. J.K.SYNTHETICS LTD. VS K.P.AGRWAL AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2007) 2 SCC 433. 2. BMTC VS. G.V.THIMMAPPA PASSED IN W.A.NO.16714/2011 D. D ON 08.11.2012. 6. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 7. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to the withdrawal of the increments. Suffice it to note that the petitioner, as a Driver of the esteemed corporation, came under disciplinary proceedings and was dismissed from service on 25.08.2000. He raised a dispute before the Labor Court in I.D.No.191/2000. The Labor Court vide award dated 25.10.2005, directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service but without any back wages. There was no award for consequential benefits. However, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48997 WP No. 9688 of 2021 Corporation wrongly gave increments to the workman; the petitioner was extended the benefit of consequential benefits from 25.08.2000 to 23.03.2006. As the extension of consequential benefits was not in line with the Labor Court’s award, the corporation withdrew the same. I am of the view that the withdrawal of the increments was "in good faith," i.e., the action was taken with honest intent and proper purpose, since the Labor court had not awarded consequential benefits. Moreover, the principles laid down by the apex court in the J.K. Synthetics case are that when an employee is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service, either a grant of back wages or consequential benefits is not automatic. The employee would be entitled to only those benefits that are expressly granted. In the present case, there was no award for consequential benefits. The argument that the withdrawal of the increment without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or prior notice constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice must necessarily fail. As the extension of increments was not in line with the award, the payment was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48997 WP No. 9688 of 2021 subsequently withdrawn by the corporation. Thus, I negate the contention of a need for a formal notice. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending interlocutory applications and interim directions, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33