- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12626 WP No. 64961 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. 64961 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, U.K. DIVISION, SIRSI, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: DURGAPPA GOVIND MOGER, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC: EX-CONDUCTOR, R/O. TENGINAGUNDI, POST: HEBLE, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: KARWAR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30/09/2009 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.64/2001 AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE KID.NO.64/2001 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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:12626 WP No. 64961 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 30.09.2009 passed in KID No.64/2001 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that respondent/workman was employed as a conductor with the Corporation since 1996. On 09.04.1998, while the workman was on duty as a conductor, an inspection was conducted by the officials of the Corporation and it was found that the workman had failed to issue tickets to 8 passengers, despite having collected ₹1.50/- from each of them. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued to him, and the workman submitted his reply denying the allegations. Thereafter, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from service with the effect from 28.03.2001. Being aggrieved by the same, the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12626 WP No. 64961 of 2011 workman filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472. 3. The petitioner/Corporation entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the proceedings. The Labour Court by its award dated 30.09.2009 ordered as under: ORDER a) Award passed (vide separately) b) Order of removal Dtd: 28.03.2001 is here by set- aside, the respondent-management is here by directed to reinstate workman in to service with continuity of service and other service benefits. The claimant workman is not entitled for backwages. c) Send a copy of award to the Government for publication. d) This award is enforceable only after one month from the date of publication. e) The Government is hereby directed to send the copy of award to both the parties by registered post acknowledgement due, without fail. 4. Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed by the Corporation. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12626 WP No. 64961 of 2011 5. It is forthcoming from the grounds urged in the writ petition that the Corporation has alleged that the workman was a trainee conductor and a habitual offender, having been involved in 32 cases of pilferage, and hence the Labour Court erred in exercising its discretion under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent, seeking dismissal of the writ petition, contends that the workman had argued before the Labour Court that the cash was not verified to determine whether he had actually collected money from 8 passengers, and therefore, he could not be held guilty of any misconduct. 7. Having noticed the rival contentions as above, the only question that arise for consideration in the present writ petition is: “Whether the Labour Court is justified in exercising its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, to interfere with the order of dismissal of service dated 28.03.2001 and directing reinstatement of the workman with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12626 WP No. 64961 of 2011 continuity of service and other service benefits without back wages?” 8. It is forthcoming that the respondent was a trainee conductor. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the enquiry conducted was just and proper. However, without noticing the relevant circumstances, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the penalty of removal of service of the workman is strikingly disproportionate to the charges proved against him and therefore, exercised the power vested under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. 9. It is pertinent to note that, as specifically contended by the Corporation in the grounds urged in the present writ petition, the respondent/workman, who was a trainee conductor, was involved in 32 cases of pilferage. The said assertion made on behalf of the petitioner in the present writ petition has not been controverted by the respondent. 10. The Labour Court has not noticed the aspect of prior/past cases while interfering with the order of punishment. 11. In view of the aforementioned, having regard to the fact that the respondent/workman was already involved in 32 of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12626 WP No. 64961 of 2011 pilferage, which aspect was not noticed by the Labour Court, the exercise of power by the Labour Court under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, to interfere with the order of punishment, is erroneous and liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the question framed for consideration in the present petition is answered in the ‘negative’. 12. Hence, the following: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed; b) The award dated 30.09.2009 passed in KID.No.64/2001 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, is set aside; c) The claim petition in KID No.64/01 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, shall stand rejected. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4