- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 77239 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SHANKAR S/O. MALLAPPA HANCHINAL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. CHIKKUMBI, SAVADATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. … PETITIONER (BY SMT. KALPANA T.M., ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF N.W.K.R.T.C., R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2012, PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.21/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND TO ALLOW THE DISPUTE FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award dated 16.11.2012 passed in K.I.D. No.21/2012 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi. In terms of the award, the petitioner's claim under Section 2A(1) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is rejected. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute. 3. The petitioner was employed under respondent/ NWKRTC. Alleging unauthorised absence from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009, a disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges. The inquiry officer concluded that petitioner is unauthorisedly absent from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009. Consequently, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner on 30.11.2010 from employment. 4. Assailing the said order, petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court Vide Order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 30.06.2012 held that the inquiry against the petitioner was not fair and proper and permitted both the parties to lead evidence to substantiate their contentions. Both parties led evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court concluded that the charges are established and rejected the claim of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said award, petitioner is before this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would raised the following contentions: (a) The charges are not established from the materials placed on record. The Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009. (b) The petitioner was not keeping in good health and he had applied for leave and same was not sanctioned. However he had to undergo treatment and he could not attend duty. (c) In the alternative, it is contented that when the petitioner was terminated from employment, an industrial dispute was pending and application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 is not filed, as such, the termination is non est in the eye of law. (d) The Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner is not a workman on the premise that he was a trainee when he was dismissed from service. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Basanagouda vs Divisional Controller1 to urge that even the trainee is a workman and trainee is entitled to the protection under the Act, 1947. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would urge that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009, as such, the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the claim petition. The petitioner did not file any application seeking leave, and his contentions relating to illness are not established by producing materials. 1 W.P.No.100878/2017 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 9. The petitioner was a trainee when he was dismissed from service, as such, he is not entitled to raise an industrial dispute. The petitioner was not the member of the Union and there was no industrial dispute pending when petitioner was terminated from service, as such there was no need to file an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. The records would indicate that petitioner was removed from employment on account of unauthorised absence. The contention of the respondent/Corporation that the petitioner was a trainee as such he cannot raise an industrial dispute, cannot be accepted in view of the law declared by the Co- ordinate Bench of this court in Basanagouda supra. In the aforementioned case, similar contention was raised that the trainee is not a workman. However, the Court has concluded that the trainee would also be a workman and is entitled to protection under the Act, 1947. Thus the contention that the petitioner was not a workman when he was removed from employment cannot be accepted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 12. Further question is whether the petitioner is able to establish that his absence was authorized. 13. Admittedly, no application is produced to hold that the petitioner applied for leave. It is borne out from the records that from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009 i.e. for 4 months petitioner did not attend to duty. Medical records are not produced to accept the contention that petitioner was not in a position to attend the duty. Thus, Labour Court is justified in holding that the finding of the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 16.02.2009 to 15.06.2009 cannot be said to be erroneous. 14. Next question is whether the termination is illegal for not complying requirement of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, 1947. 15. This contention was not raised before the Labour Court. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would submit that industrial dispute was not pending when the petitioner was removed from service. However, the records - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 would indicate that I.D. No.148/2005 was pending before Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. That dispute was relating to charter of demands. Under the circumstances, the dismissal of the petition from employment without approval as required under section 33(2)(b) is non est in the eye of law as held in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others2. If that is the case, the petitioner is entitled to Backwages and other consequential benefits apart from the order of reinstatement. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that petitioner without prejudice to his contentions relating to backwages to be raised in case the respondent/KSRTC files an appeal against this order, does not claim backwages. 18. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order of reinstatement is set aside, the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated with backwages and he is 2 AIR 2002 SC 643 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16862 WP No. 77239 of 2013 entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 4