- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101058 OF 2024 (L-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI SHIVASHANKAR S/O BASALINGAPPA MADIWALAR, AGE: MAJOR, 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION. RETIRED DRIVER, R/O. KASHIVISHWANATHNAGAR, NEAR APMC, GADAG-582101. SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAMAZIABDUL SATTAR RAHIMANSAHEB, ADVOCATE) AND: N.W.K.R.T.C REPTD BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NWKRTC GADAG DIVISION, MULGUND NAKA, GADAG …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANTOSHKUMAR G. RAMPUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY VIDE NO. VA.KA.RA.SA.GAVI/SHISHAL/ 1864(10) 592 DATED 24-01-2013 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-C PASSED BY D.A.DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY PRESIDING OFFICER RESPONDENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBBALLI IN ID NO. 402/2014 DATED. 26-09-2023 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A1 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND CONSCIENCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: To set aside the order passed by presiding officer respondent Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in ID No. 402/2014 dated 26.09.2023 marked at Annexure-A1 in the interest of justice and equity and conscience. 2. The petitioner was employed in the respondent- Corporation as Driver. On 28.09.2010, while he was on duty enroute root from Tirupati to Gadag, the Bus was checked at stage-I when he was found with excess cash of Rs.2,100/-, hence, articles of charge were issued, towards which the petitioner replied denying the charges and an enquiry having been ordered. The Enquiry Officer gave a report against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority having issued a second show cause notice, the reply thereto not being found to be satisfactory, the disciplinary authority reduced the basic pay of the petitioner to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 minimum treating the period of suspension as not being on duty. 3. It is challenging the same, petitioner has raised a dispute in ID No.402/2014. Initially the said proceedings came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2019, mainly on the ground that the defence of the petitioner had not been established. The defence being that one Sri Sharanappa Mallappa Kamaldinni had given him Rs.2,100/- to make payment of same to his father Sri Mallappa Basappa Kamaldinni. Since neither Sri Sharanappa nor his father Sri Mallappa was examined. Hence, the petitioner challenging the said award had filed petition in Writ Petition No.116892/2019, this Court vide its order dated 01.02.2023 remanded the matter to the Labour Court granting liberty to the petitioner to examine such other witnesses as petitioner chose fit. Upon remand the petitioner examined the said Sri Sharanapppa, who deposed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 that he had given money to the petitioner to be handed over to his father. 4. The Labour Court vide its order dated 26.09.2023 again rejected the reference confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority. In that background the workmen is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel Sri.Namaziabdul Sattar Rahimansaheb appearing for petitioner would submit that there is no other case which have been filed against the petitioner or any disciplinary proceedings filed against the petitioner, except the present matter. The amount of Rs.2,100/- has been confirmed by Sri Sharanappa to have been given by him to be handed over to his father, thus the petitioner was only being a messenger for the money and though the said money is in excess. The reason having been given and established by examination of Sri Sharanappa. The same ought to have been accepted by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 considered that it has not power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority unless there is victimization or unfair labour practice under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the ID Act’) and as such held that the punishment which has been imposed is proper and correct. 6. Learned counsel Sri Santoshkumar G. Rampur appearing for respondent-Corporation would support the award passed by the Labour Court by contending that the amount was held by the petitioner was in excess, the explanation was not acceptable by the Corporation. He ought to have declared the existence of the excess amount while living the depot not having indicated the same. There being excess amount found with the petitioner and necessary action has been taken by the disciplinary authority which cannot be found fault with. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 7. On enquiry, the learned counsel for the respondent that if any other disciplinary proceedings are filed against the petitioner. He fairly submits that there is no other allegation against the petitioner or proceedings filed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the papers. 9. The only allegation which has been made against the petitioner is that the petitioner had a sum of Rs.2,100/- in excess to the amount which would have been available to the petitioner on the sale of the tickets, by stage by stage, while traveling from the Tirupati to Gadag. Though, no excess amount can be retained by any Conductor/ Driver-cum- Conductor. If at all there is any amount in excess, it would have to be required to be explained by the said driver. In the present case, the explanation given is that one of his friends Sri Sharanappa had - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 given in that money to be handed over to his father. Initially, Sri Sharanappa had not been examined, subsequently on remand, he was examined and he has supported the case of the petitioner. Taking this fact into account, along with the fact that no other disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that these defences which have been raised has been suitably raised. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of Sri Sharanappa, that he had given money to the petitioner to handover same to his father. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the finding of Labour Court that under 11A of ID Act the powers could be only exercise if the victimization or unfair labour practice cannot be sustained since no clearly case of victimization. 10. The reduction of pay to a basic rate when there is no offence or delinquency on part of the workmen would - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 result in unfair treatment of the workmen. Though, not an unfair labour practice, when this fact of a person/workmen being made to suffer unnecessarily is brought to the notice of Labour Court or to this Court, it would be required for those facts to be taken into consideration and justice be rendered to the concerned workman. Though it does not strictly come under Section 11A of ID Act. In that view of the matter, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The award dated 26.09.2023 passed in I.D.No.402/2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi is set aside. (iii) The reference bearing No.Ka.E.72/ IDG-2014 dated 09.09.2014 is allowed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3768 WP No. 101058 of 2024 (iv) The punishment imposed or reducing the basic pay to minimum basic pay of the pay scale is set aside. (v) The Corporation is directed to calculate the differential amount and make payment of the differential amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 126