IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.7113/2020 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.49896/2019 (L-KSRTC) IN WP.NO.7113/2020: BETWEEN: 1. 2. 3. T.S.RANGASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. ANUSUYAMMA W/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ASHA KUMARI J.R. D/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS DHANANJAY KUMAR R. S/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT JAVAGAL ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 125 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCILLINARY AUTHORITY KSRTC 2 CHIKKAMAGALURU DIVISION CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED IN I.D.A.NO.27/2015 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WP.NO.49896/2019: BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION CHIKMAGALUR BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP.BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ... PETITIONER (BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. T.S.RANGASWAMY SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. ANUSUYAMMA W/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS ASHA KUMARI J.R. D/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS DHANANJAY KUMAR R. S/O.LATE RANGASWAMY T.S. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3 ALL ARE R/AT JAVAGAL ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT-573 125 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 13.02.2019 PASSED IN I.D.A.NO.27/2015 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR CAV ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) These two petitions are filed by the workman and the employer-Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') respectively, aggrieved by the award dated 13.02.2019 passed in I.D.A.No.27/2015 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru (for short, 'the Labour Court'). 2. The petition preferred by the legal representatives of the workman, is to quash the award 4 insofar as denial of backwages is concerned and for a direction to the Corporation to pay the backwages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement, whereas the petition preferred by the Corporation is to quash the entire award of the Labour Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: The workman was selected and appointed as Driver in the Corporation vide appointment order dated 17.03.1993. Thereafter, he was placed on probation from 28.06.1995. His service came to be confirmed by the Corporation and from the date of his appointment, he was discharging his duties sincerely, diligently and effectively to the satisfaction of his superiors. 3.1 It is the case of the workman that he had put more than 22 years of uninterrupted service in the Corporation. The workman was discharging his duties as a Driver in Chikkamagaluru Depot. On the basis of the 5 false report submitted by the Divisional Security Inspector, the Corporation had initiated the disciplinary action against him and issued articles of charge dated 24.03.2014, wherein it is alleged that at the time of selection during the year 1992, the workman secured employment for the post of Driver by submitting a false and bogus Transfer Certificate, thereby he committed a serious misconduct as per the Regulations of the Corporation. The workman submitted his detailed reply to the articles of charge denying the charges levelled against him. But the Corporation is not satisfied with the explanation and reply given by the workman. Hence, the Corporation has decided to hold Domestic Enquiry. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. 3.2 It is the further case of the workman that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted a fair enquiry and he has not followed the mandatory provisions of Regulation 23 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation 6 Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, so also, the principles of natural justice and no sufficient opportunity was provided to the workman and without considering the materials and evidence placed on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted a false report. 3.3 It is the further case of the workman that the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Corporation is not fair and proper. Thereafter, the Corporation issued a show cause notice to the workman. The workman sent a detailed reply, which was overlooked and ignored and the findings of the Enquiry Officer was mechanically and blindly accepted by the Corporation and consequently, the petitioner came to be dismissed by order dated 08.10.2015. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 10(4A) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to set-aside the order of dismissal, before the Labour Court. Notice was 7 issued. The Corporation appeared before the Labour Court and filed its objection statement. 3.4 The Labour Court framed the following issues for consideration: "1. Whether the 1st party proves that the departmental enquiry conducted against the 1st party by the 2nd party is not fair and proper? 2. Whether the 2nd party proves that the 1st party has cheated the corporation (2nd party) by submitting on false caste certificate and securing job on fake documents? 3. Whether the 1st party is entitled for the reliefs sought in the application? 4. What award?" 3.5 After consideration of issues and in order to substantiate the case, the parties led their evidence. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the Departmental Enquiry conducted was not fair and proper. 8 The workman examined himself as WW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.W1 to W15, whereas the Corporation examined two witnesses as MWs.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Exs.M1 to M93. 3.6 Upon consideration of the materials placed on record and on hearing the arguments of learned counsels for parties, the Labour Court partly allowed the claim petition; the order of dismissal passed by the Corporation came to be set-aside; the Corporation was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of services and all other benefits without backwages. 3.7 Being Aggrieved, the workman is before this Court questioning non awarding of backwages and the Corporation is also before this Court questioning the entire award passed by the Labour Court. 4. Learned counsel for workman contends that the Labour Court has committed an error in denying the 9 backwages, which is illegal, arbitrary and the same is liable to be quashed. According to the workman, he is the native of Thannigebile and Nandibatlu Villages of Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and his ancestors were residing at K.B.Hal, Kalasapura, Belawadi Narasipura of Lakya Hobli, which comes under Chikkamagaluru Taluk and he belongs to Kuruba community. It is the contention of learned counsel for workman that the workman never violated any provisions of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations, 1982 (for short, 'the Regulations, 1982') as alleged in the articles of charge. It is also contended by learned counsel that the workman has categorically proved that he belongs to Kuruba community by caste by producing relevant documents. Having accepted the case of the workman that he belongs to Kuruba community by caste, 10 the Labour Court has committed an error in denying the backwages without valid and sufficient reasons. 4.1 It is also contended by learned counsel for workman that the order of dismissal passed by the Corporation is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, wherein it is held that the declaration of the caste by the employees at the time of their appointment and whenever there is any discrepancy is alleged contending that the employee does not belong to a particular caste, the competent authority to determine the caste of that employee is not the employer, but it is the Caste Verification Committee. Therefore, he contends that the social status ought to have been scrutinised or looked into by the Caste Verification Committee and not the Corporation. Therefore, he contends that the Labour 11 Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the order of dismissal is illegal and arbitrary. However, the Labour Court denied the backwages, which is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he seeks to allow his petition and set-aside the award insofar as it relates to denial of backwages to the workman. 5. Per contra, Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for Corporation vehemently contends that the award passed by the Labour Court is erroneous and replete with several mis-directions and error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, it deserves to be set-aside. She further contends that the workman is dismissed from service on the ground that he had produced the Transfer Certificate which was tampered in respect of his name and caste. His name, as per the School records, is 'S.Rangaswamy', whereas the workman has tampered it as 'T.S.Rangaswamy'. The case of the workman, as per the School records, was 'Vokkaliga', the same has been 12 tampered by the workman as 'Kuruba'. She further contends that the Labour Court having recorded the finding that the workman has produced a fake Transfer Certificate, could not have directed the Corporation to reinstate him into service by considering the said Transfer Certificate. It is further contended by learned counsel for Corporation that the documents produced by the workman are not genuine and he has suppressed the facts in terms of Regulations 4(9) of the Regulations, 1982. Therefore, she contends that the workman ought to have been dismissed from service, which has been rightly done by the Corporation. However, the Labour Court is highly erroneous in setting aside the order of dismissal. 5.1 Learned counsel further contends that the workman was required to establish that the Transfer Certificate produced by him was genuine, whereas the Corporation has been able to make out a case that the 13 contents of the Transfer Certificate were tampered only to suit his case. Therefore, the Corporation rightly dismissed him from service by relying upon Regulations for having submitted a false Transfer Certificate. Learned counsel further contends that even if the workman is able to prove that he belongs to Kuruba community, however, the same will not absolve him from charges against him and the dismissal on the ground that he has produced a fake Transfer Certificate. All these aspects having been properly considered by the Labour Court, it has partly allowed the claim of the workman in a mechanical manner by ordering the reinstatement and consequential benefits. Therefore, the Labour Court is not justified in ordering the reinstatement of the workman with consequential benefits. On these grounds, she seeks to set-aside the award passed by the Labour Court and affirm the order of dismissal against the workman. 14 6. I have heard learned counsel for workman and learned counsel for Corporation. 7. It is not in dispute that the workman was appointed to the post of the Driver in the Corporation on 17.03.1993 and in the application, he had declared his caste as Kuruba by producing the caste certificate at Ex.M60. It is seen that based on the report submitted by the Security Officer to the effect that the workman had tampered the record and in the place of Vokkaliga, he has corrected it as Kuruba, whereas in all the School records, the caste of the workman is shown as Vokkaliga. It is the fact that the Corporation issued articles of charge to the workman for securing employment by suppressing facts, which was replied to by the workman. An enquiry was conducted and the charges came to be proved. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued, to which the workman replied and subsequently, on conducting an enquiry, the workman came to be 15 dismissed from service for production of a false Transfer Certificate. It is apparently a fact that the Labour Court has come to a conclusion that the Departmental Enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and that the charges were not proved and ordered for reinstatement of the workman. 8. It is the fact that the workman studied upto 8th standard and he is the native of Thannigebile and Nandibatlu Villages of Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District and his ancestors were the permanent residents of K.B.Hal, Kalasapura, Belawadi Narasipura of Lakya Hobli, which comes under Chikkamagaluru Taluk. Though the workman belongs to Kuruba community, at the time of admission to the School, his caste was mentioned as Vokkaliga. In order to substantiate and prove these facts that the workman belongs to Kuruba community, he has produced the genealogy tree, School records as well as income-cum-caste certificate issued by the Revenue 16 Authorities concerning to his family members. It is relevant to know that in all these documents, the caste is clearly mentioned as Kuruba while admitting to Lingadahalli School. Therefore, the workman, while securing the appointment in the Corporation, filled up the application by mentioning his caste as Kuruba. It is also relevant to note that the Enquiry Officer in his report has clearly stated that the workman belongs to Kuruba caste and he has proved the same. However, the Corporation dismissed the workman from service on the ground that at the time of appointment, the workman has produced a false Transfer Certificate and secured the job. When the petitioner has produced the Transfer Certificate, wherein it is shown as the workman belongs to Kuruba caste and all his family members belong to Kuruba caste, the version and material evidence placed by the workman would have to be believed that he belongs to Kuruba caste. 17 9. On perusal of the award, the Labour Court has carefully analysed and considered all the relevant materials placed on record by the workman as well as by the Corporation, the genealogy tree, the School records and income-cum-caste certificates of his family members. The Labour Court has also considered the deposition of the workman marked at Ex.M.28, so also, other relevant materials placed and evidence adduced with regard to the brother of the workman one Thimmegowda belongs to Kuruba caste, which is clearly shown in the income-cum-caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar as per Ex.M76. Several other documents has been taken note of and appreciated by the Labour Court to come to a conclusion that the workman belongs to Kuruba community. However, there is an error committed in mentioning his caste as Vokkaliga in the School records. 18 10. Therefore, it is seen that when in the School records of the workman in consonance with other records of his family members and in other documents issued by the authorities, it is mentioned that they belong to Kuruba community, he has mentioned the same in the application while seeking appointment in the Corporation that he belongs to Kuruba community. Therefore, the Labour Court has rightly assessed all the materials placed before it and has come to the conclusion that the workman has not committed any violation of the Regulations of the Corporation, so also, he has not made any false statement while filling the application for securing appointment in the Corporation. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court has set-aside the order of dismissal passed by the Corporation and has ordered for reinstatement of the workman in continuity of service. 19 11. I am in agreement with learned counsel for workman that if the Corporation is not satisfied with the genuinity of the certificate produced by the workman or has any doubt with regard to the caste of the workman, the correct procedure would be to seek for verification of the caste and lodge a complaint before the District Caste Verification Committee (DCVC). However, the same has not been done in the present case. Therefore, the Corporation having taken up to itself to enquire into the aspect of the caste of the workman may not be the correct procedure of law to be adopted. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court is sound and proper. Hence, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the said award. 12. It is also relevant to note that this Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction, should be circumspect in interfering with the award passed by the Labour Court, which is a fact finding Court. Unless there is a grave 20 error or cogent material produced to show that the Labour Court committed a gross error, illegality or perversity, in my opinion, this Court does not find any need to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, so also, in the present case, I do not find any good ground having been made out by the Corporation to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition preferred by the workman is allowed; ii) The award dated 13.02.2019 passed in I.D.A.No.27/2015 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru, is hereby interfered so far denial of the backwages is concerned; iii) A writ of mandamus is issued to the Corporation directing to pay the backwages to the workman 21 from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; iv) During the pendency of these petitions, the workman has died. The legal representatives of the workman having brought on record, the question of reinstatement, continuity of service would not be of any consequence. However, the legal representatives of the workman would be entitled to all other service benefits and also the backwages which was denied by the Labour Court. v) The petition preferred by the Corporation is dismissed; Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB