- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 67941 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN: NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 020, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: RAJKUMAR REKHU JADHAV, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: NILL, R/O: HADAGALI L.T.NO.1, TQ & DIST: BIJAPUR. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AGAINST ORDER KID. NO.35/2009 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI DATED 25/11/2010, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 25.11.2010 passed in KID No.35/2009 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent was working as a driver-conductor during the year 2007. It was alleged by the Corporation that when the workman was conducting the bus of the Corporation, he failed to issue tickets to 4 adults and 8 school going children, as also failed to collect fare of ₹ 4/- from each adult and ₹ 2/- from each children. That the checking officials collected penalty amount of ₹ 320/- from the passengers. A show cause notice was issued to the workmen who submitted the explanation denying the charges. Enquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority ordered for removal of the name of the workman from the list of driver cum conductor. 1 Hereinafter for short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 3. Being aggrieved the workman filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment, 1987) Act, 19472 I. D. Act. The Corporation entered appearance in the said proceedings and contested the same. The Labour Court, vide its award dated 25.11.2010, allowed the petition filed by the workman and passed the following award. “AWARD a. Award is passed. b. Claim petition filed by 1st party-workman is 1 hereby allowed. c. The order of removal of name of 1st party-workman from the selection list of driver-cum-conductor of NWKRTC, Chikodi Division, Chikodi and forfeiting the right of 1st party-workman's appointment dated 8.6.2009 is hereby set aside. d. The 2nd party-respondent is hereby directed to reinstate the workman in to service with full back wages from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated in to service, with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the government of Karnataka. e. Send a copy of this award to the government for publication. 2 Hereinafter for short ‘I.D. Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 f. The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this award. g. The Government is hereby directed to intimate Both parties about the publication of award by registered post acknowledgement due, without fail.” 4. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed. 5. It is forthcoming that the Labour Court while answering Issue No.1 as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, the management examined MW2 and marked exhibits M9 to M23 and the workman did not adduce any further evidence on the merits of the allegations. The Labour Court noticing the material on record Held as under: “9. The management has contended that the checking inspectors prepared penalty receipt as per ex.M.2 to which one student S.V. Kammar has signed the penalty receipt. The name of S.V. Kammar is not found in the statement of students Ex.M.3. and this fact is admitted by M.W.2. Therefore it creates doubt regarding genuiness of penalty receipt and the offence memo. However the inspection report which is acceptable to both parties clearly goes to show that the workman had issued tickets to all 26+11+18 passengers when the bus was checked. 10. The checking officials recovered Rs.320/- towards penalty amount being 10 times of fine amount of Rs. 32/- However M.W.2 has deposed that they recovered penalty amount being 20 times of the penalty - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 amount, which is also not correct. Therefore from the evidence led by both parties it is crystal clear that the management has failed to prove that the workman failed to issue tickets to 4 adult and 8 minor children aged below 12 years and failed to collect Rs. 32/- from them. The checking inspectors took inspection report and they were aware of the contents of same. Therefore they ought not to have booked the case against the workman. Therefore I further hold that the order of Disciplinary Authority dismissing the workman from service is not justifiable and liable to be set aside. Hence my finding on issue No.2 is in the negative.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It is forthcoming from the finding of the Labour Court as noticed above that the workman had issued tickets to all passengers when the bus was checked. The Labour Court has also recorded a finding that the genuineness of the penalty receipt and office memo is doubtful. Accordingly, the Labour Court has held in favour of the workman by holding that the charges have not been proved and has also set aside the order of punishment. 7. The Labour Court having properly appreciated the material on record and having set aside the order of dismissal ordering the enquiry, as also recorded a finding dismissing the charges and consequently setting aside the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12625 WP No. 67941 of 2011 order of dismissal, the finding of the Labour Court is just and proper, and the Corporation has not made out any ground for this Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17