- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2760 WP No. 102199 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102199 OF 2022 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. SANGANABASAPPA S/O. MAHANTAPPA ANGADI, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, NWKRTC, AT AND PO: AIHOLE, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT -587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVI HEGDE & SRI VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NEKRTC, HOSAPETE DIVISION, HOSAPETE, DIST. BALLARI -583101. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SARIGE BHAVAN, KALABURGI -585101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4/8/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND RELEASE ALL THE DIFFERENCE OF SALARY AS PER THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE PETITIONER, BY FIXING AN OUTER LIMIT, AND ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING OF THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2760 WP No. 102199 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: 1) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.08.2020,, vide Annexure-D and release all the difference of salary as per the entitlement of the petitioner, by fixing an outer limit, and 2) Issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case including of the cost of this writ petition, in the ends of justice. 2. Heard Shri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondents. 3. The fats in brief germane are as follows: The petitioner is appointed as a Conductor in the Respondent-Corporation in the year 2000 claims to be a permanent employee. It transfers that 12 years thereafter, the petitioner on the allegation of unauthorised absence is dismissed from service, which is challenged before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2760 WP No. 102199 of 2022 Industrial Tribunal in KID No.76 of 2013. The Tribunal allows the dispute and directs reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. This is challenged by the Corporation before this Court in Writ Petition No.106719 of 2014. The order directing payment of full back wages was set aside but the order of reinstatement with continuity of service comes to be confirmed. The petitioner then reinstated into service on 21.07.2020 and since then he has been representing to the respondent to re-fix his salary and grant all other consequential benefits pursuant to the reinstatement. That is not considered and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, a direction be issued to the respondents to consider his representation dated 04.08.2020, it would suffice at this juncture. 5. Learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for the respondents would refute the submission in contending that the petitioner has to go before Labour - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2760 WP No. 102199 of 2022 Court to urge all his grievances and not before this Court and the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The afore-quoted facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was already before the Labour Court on a challenge to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service that is set aside with a direction of reinstatement continuity of service and backwages. The backwages is what is set aside by this Court by affirming reinstatement with continuity of service. Therefore, the respondents ought to have on reinstatement, reworked the entire salary or pay what is to be paid as a consequential benefit to the petitioner. Therefore there is no question of sending the petitioner again back to the Labour Court to redetermine this consequential directions in terms of the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court, which had affirmed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2760 WP No. 102199 of 2022 continuity of service and reinstatement but denied the back wages for a particular period. 8. Therefore, the respondent - corporation will now consider the representation dated 04.08.2020 for the purpose for which it is submitted and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of receipt of a copy this order if not earlier and communicate the order so passed to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP / CT: ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13