- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 63546 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. PADMAPPA KEMPANNAVAR, AGE: ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. MUGAD, TQ & DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, HUBLI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OF DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD TO THE EXTENT THE PETITIONER WAS AGGRIEVED IN KID NO.57/2007 DATED:26/10/2010 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/workman seeking for the following beliefs: “PRAYER: Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to Annexure-D from the Labour Court, Hubli and grant the following reliefs to meet the ends of justice. A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order of direction quashing the award to the extent the petitioner was aggrieved in KID No.57/2007 dated:26/10/2010, which is produced and marked as Annexure-D to meet the ends of justice. B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order or direction directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits to meet the ends of justice. C. Also award the costs of the writ proceedings in the interest of justice.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the petitioner/workman was appointed by the respondent-Management as a conductor in the year 1993. Alleging that on 24.03.2001, the workman, while conducting the bus, had failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare amount of ₹69/- from two passengers, a charge sheet was issued on 24.03.2001. The workman replied to the said charges. An enquiry was held and it having been held that the charges against the workman are proved, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 09.02.2007. Being aggrieved, the workman raised dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 19871 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli2. The management entered appearance in the said proceedings and contested the same. The Labour Court, by its order dated 26.10.2010 allowed the petition and proceeded to pass the following: “ORDER “The petition is partly allowed. The dismissal order passed by the respondent dated 9.2.2007 is modified to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Labour Court’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service within one month from the date of commencement of the award with continuity of service only for the purpose of calculating the pension benefits and without back wages. Send a copy of this award to the Government for its due publication as contemplated under Section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.” 3. Being aggrieved, the workman has filed the present petition. 4. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner/workman and learned counsel for respondent/ Management. 5. The primary contention put forth by the learned counsel for the workman is that the management has terminated the workman from service without obtaining prior permission from the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.148/2005. It is contended that the management admittedly not having obtained any permission from the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, where the disputes raised by the Federation of the Workmen against the Management regarding the charter of demands are pending, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 the order of punishment is non-est in law and is required to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the management contends that the workman did not produce any material to demonstrate the pendency of I.D.No.148/2005. It is further contended that the Labour Court has adequately considered the said aspect while considering Issue No.1 framed for consideration and that the said order of the Labour Court ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present appeal. 7. It is forthcoming that the Labour Court, consequent to the filing of the claim statement and the statement of objections by the parties, has framed four issues. Issue No.1 framed for consideration reads as under: 1. Whether the management has complied Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, 1947? 8. While considering Issue No.1, the Labour Court has considered the contention put forth on behalf of the workman that permission was not obtained in I.D.No.148/2005. While considering the same, the Labor Court has held as under: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 “10. In this case, the petitioner has produced the copy of the reference in I.D. No. 148/05, copy of the charter of demands, copy of the order-sheet and the claim statement. As per these documents, the K.S.R.T.C. Staff and Workers Federation raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in. I.D. No. 148/05. The petitioner has not produced whether the respondent has appeared in that case and filed any counter statement. The respondent has not stated anything in this respect. There is an Industrial Tribunal in Hubli having jurisdiction over the revenue Districts of North Karnataka. The respondent is within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. The Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore has to give finding whether the taking of the approval by the petitioner under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D.Act, is necessary or not. The petitioner has not brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore of his dismissal from service for the reason best known to him. The proper Court to decide whether it is necessary for taking of approval or not is the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and not this Court. It is not the case of the respondent that he has taken approval before dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner raised this dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. questioning the dismissal order. The issue involved in this case whether the management is justified in dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 9.2.2007. This Court cannot give finding whether the taking of approval from the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore is necessary or not. There is a provision in the Industrial Disputes Act to take appropriate action before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore by the petitioner. So, under the. circumstances, I come to the conclusion that this issue does not arise for consideration before this Court and answered accordingly.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The Labour Court, while considering the contention of the workman, has recorded a finding that I.D.No.148/2005 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore and that the Labour Court was situated at Hubli and hence, the Labour Court cannot give a finding whether taking of approval from the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore is necessary or not. The Labour Court has also noticed that there is Industrial Tribunal in Hubli having jurisdiction over the revenue districts of North Karnataka. The finding of the Labour Court is ex-facie erroneous and liable to be interfered with. 10. Having regard to the fact that the workman had produced copies of the reference in I.D.No.148/2005, copy of the charter of demands, copy of the order sheet and the claim statement, the Labour Court noticing the said documents had - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 noted that the KSRTC Staff and Workers Federation had raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.148/2005. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the employer/management may take action against a workman for any misconduct during the pendency of proceedings under Section 33 of the Act. However, Section 33(3) of the Act mandates that no employer can take action against the workman without the permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Chief Traffic Manager, BMTC vs. Shri.M.Narayana Reddy3 after noticing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others4 noticing a similar fact situation regarding pendency of I.D.No.148/2005 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, has held as under: “13. On perusal of Sec.33(2)(b), it is clear that even if an employer has dismissed his employee not connected with the dispute pending adjudication, still Section 33(2)(b) shall be 3 W.P.No.5738/2012 DD 12.03.2013 4 AIR 2002 SC 643 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 followed before dismissing him from the service. On perusal of this provision, there is no bar for an employer to conduct an enquiry, but he cannot punish an employee without making an application seeking approval of the action already taken.” (emphasis supplied) 11. A similar proposition has also been held by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.Irappa S/o. Pawadeppa Kolappanavar vs. The Management of NWKRTC, Hubli5. 12. In the present factual matrix, as has been noticed by the Labour Court, it is not the case of the management that it has taken approval in I.D.No.148/2005 before dismissing the workman from service. In the present case, the Labour Court has modified the order of dismissal dated 09.09.2007 to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 13. Having regard to the settled proposition of law, as noticed above, and having regard to the admitted fact situation that the respondent/management has not taken permission in 5 W.P.No.105450/2014 D.D.02.11.2015 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 the pending proceedings in I.D.No.148/2005 before the order of dismissal dated 09.09.2007 was passed, it is clear that no order of punishment could have been ordered upon without the requisite permission being obtained from the management, as noticed above. The consequence is that the order of punishment without taking the requisite permission would be non-est in law. In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the present petitioner is liable to be granted. 14. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The above petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated dated:26/10/2010 in KID No.57/2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli is hereby modified to the extent of holding that the order dated dismissal dated 09.02.2007 passed by the respondent/management dismissing the petitioner/workman from service is set aside and it is further ordered that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11822 WP No. 63546 of 2011 respondent/management shall reinstate the petitioner/workman into service within thirty days with full back wages, continuity of service as also all consequential benefits. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5