- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 63458 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA.P.KALASOOR., ADVOCATE) AND: ABDULAZIZ S/O. BABUSAB SHAYANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O. S.B. SHAYANNAVAR, CCB.22, PLOT NO. 36, INDAL ROAD, AJAM NAGAR, 6TH CROSS, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 ORAL ORDER Smt.Sunitha P. Kalasoor, counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person. A notice was issued to the respondent. A perusal of the office note depicts that the respondent is served and unrepresented. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person. 2. The brief facts are these: The respondent, Abdulaziz was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 01.02.2001, he was conducting the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Rajanakatti – Hirekerur - Sankeshwar. The bus was subjected for checking at Pachyapur Railway Station and it was found that there were 31+00+03 passengers in the bus and the respondent had failed to issue tickets to ten passengers, who were traveling from Basapur to Pachyapur Railway Station and failed to collect fare of Rs.2/- each from them, thus causing loss to the Corporation. The checking squad collected the fine amount of Rs.200/- from the ticketless - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 passengers, and the necessary endorsement was made on the waybill, and the offence memo was issued on the spot. Articles of Charge were issued to the workman. He submitted his reply to the Articles of Charge and contended that he was in the process of issuing tickets and, in the meantime, the bus was subjected to checking. The respondent was subjected to a domestic inquiry, and a detailed inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer, calling upon him to show why the findings of the inquiry officer should not be accepted. The disciplinary authority examined the entire records pertaining to the case, accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and they also referred to the history sheet of the workman and passed the order of punishment on 14.09.2007 and dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, after a lapse of almost three years, he raised a dispute before the Labor Court Hubli in Ref. No.28/2010. On a preliminary issue, the Labor - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labor Court vide award dated 29.04.2011, partly allowed the reference. This award is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds, as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference. 5. The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The charge made against the workman is that he had failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare from the passengers. It is significant to note that the Labor Court concluded that the respondent had not issued tickets; however, it proceeded with the matter and excused the serious misconduct. The Labor Court pardons the misconduct on the ground that the workman had no intention to pilfer the revenue of the Corporation. This is incorrect. The respondent, being a - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 conductor of the Corporation, should discharge his duties diligently and carefully. As a Conductor, his only work is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid a salary for this work. In the present case, ten passengers were without tickets. The respondent had no difficulty in issuing the tickets; the non- issue of tickets would only establish that he had no intention to issue tickets. Furthermore, the rule prevailing in the Corporation in the matter of issue of tickets is "Issue and Start"; the said rule is violated and there is no justification for the respondent not to issue tickets. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labor Court. I may venture to say that the Labor Court failed to have regard to the relevant considerations and disregarded the relevant matters. 6. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labor Court is liable to be set aside, and accordingly, it is set aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 29.04.2011 passed by the Labor Court, Hubli in Ref. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5802 WP No. 63458 of 2012 No.28/2010 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 14.09.2007 is confirmed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any are disposed of, and the interim order, if any granted by this Court stands discharged. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP, CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67