- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 66038 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: MR. MAHALING LAXMAN HIREMANI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL, EX-DRIVER, C/O. GNAPATI K. MANE, POST: MALLIKWAD, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELGAUM. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., CHIKKODI DIVISION, BELGAUM, DIST. BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED ON DOMESTIC ENQUIRY DATED 13/02/2006, IN K.I.D. NO.03/2005, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE AWARD PASSED IN K.I.D. NO.3/2005 DATED 20/06/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, BOTH ORDERS WERE PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award passed in KID No.3/2005 by the Labour Court in terms of which the petitioners claim is rejected. In addition to the award dated 20.06.2009, petitioner has also questioned the findings on Issue No.1 relating to the fairness of the departmental enquiry said to have been conducted by the respondent/Corporation. 2. Inviting the attention of this Court to the order sheet of the proceeding in the departmental enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after employer’s witness was cross examined, the case was closed on that day granting ten days time to the petitioner/delinquent employee to furnish his defense. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defense was furnished and thereafter, under the applicable Regulations, the proceeding ought to have been taken further to record the evidence of the delinquent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 employee. However, that procedure is not followed. Then the order of termination is passed by violating the mandatory procedure. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Yelappa vs The Management of NWKRTC1. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation would raise the following contentions: (i) The finding on issue No.1 relating to fairness of enquiry was recorded in favour of the Corporation in the year 2005 and Writ Petition filed in the year 2011 to question the said finding is not tenable; (ii) That the respondent ought to have moved an application to lead evidence in the domestic enquiry. 1 Writ Petition No.68782/2010 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 He having failed to do so, is not entitled to contend that opportunity is not given to him. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. It is indeed true that the finding on issue No.1 relating to the fairness of enquiry is recorded on 13.02.2006. Petitioner has not questioned the finding on the said issue No.1 in the year 2006. Petitioner participated in the proceeding before the Labour Court and the Labour Court passed an award in the year 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition in 2011 questioning both the award as well as the findings on issue No.1. 8. Since, it is pointed out that the proceeding was closed after cross examination of the witnesses on behalf of the employer and despite the delinquent employee filing the defense statement after the cross-examination, the proceeding is not reopened, the enquiry is contrary to the Regulations applicable to the petitioner and the respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 and this view is supported by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Yellappa supra. That being the position, the Court is of the view that the petition to question the order on issue No.1 as well as the award is certainly maintainable as the award is passed in the year 2009 and the petition is filed in the year 2011. 9. As far as the contention of the respondent/ Corporation that it has followed the procedure contemplated under the C & D Regulations, it is to be noticed that Regulation mandates evidence of the delinquent employee after the defense statement is filed. Despite filing of the defense statement, said procedure is not followed. 10. The Disciplinary Authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, which has not been done. Thus, the enquiry is vitiated and it is not fair and proper. Once the enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, the award has to be set-aside as it is based on an enquiry which is not fair and proper. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15400 WP No. 66038 of 2011 11. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order dated 13.02.2006 at Annexure - C and award dated 20.06.2009 at Annexure - E are quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court to hold fresh enquiry relating to the alleged misconduct and thereafter, pass appropriate award. (iv) It is made clear that all contentions are kept open. (v) Registry to return the Trial Court Records forthwith. (vi) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 15.12.2025 without waiting for any further notice. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5