- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.103367 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHADEV S/O. YALLAPPA GAVALI, AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. NOW NIL, R/O. VIDYANAGAR, MULGUND, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE N.W.K.R.T.C., HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, R/BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBBALLI-580 030. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ORDER OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT BEARING NO.WaKaRaSa/hugavi/sibbandi/nemaka/C7/857 DATED 24.03.2020 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G, BE QUASHED TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner-workman is assailing an impugned order dated 01.09.2018, removing the petitioner from employment. 3. Certain facts are admitted. 4. The petitioner-workman was a ‘Badli Worker’ under the respondent-Corporation and he was removed from employment in terms of order dated 26.09.1996. The said order was subject matter of Industrial Dispute and the petitioner's claim was rejected by the Labour Court. 5. The petitioner-workman approached this Court in Writ Petition No.63574/2010; the petition was allowed in terms of order dated 20.10.2016; the order of termination was set-aside and the matter was remitted to the employer to hold fresh enquiry and to pass appropriate orders. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 6. The respondent-Corporation issued notice to the petitioner to attend the enquiry based on the charge- sheet issued after the order dated 20.10.2016 referred to above. The petitioner filed an application to reinstate him first and thereafter, to hold inquiry. This request was not accepted by the respondent-Corporation. Thereafter, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. 7. The respondent-Corporation in terms of impugned Order marked at Annexure-E, dismissed the petitioner from employment. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was to be reinstated after the order of dismissal was set-aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.63574/2010 and the enquiry should have been held thereafter. However, enquiry held without reinstatement virtually amounts to dismissing the petitioner from employment and then holding enquiry for the said dismissal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 9. Learned counsel in support of his contention would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others vs. Ananta Saha and others1. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation would submit that after earlier order of dismissal was set-aside by this Court, the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and was called upon to participate in the proceeding. However, the petitioner refused to participate, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 11. In addition, learned counsel for the respondent- Corporation would also submit that order of termination has to be questioned before the jurisdictional Labour Court and the petitioner cannot approach the writ Court. 12. In support of the contention that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation would place reliance on the 1 (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 142 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others Vs A. Masilamani2. 13. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and produced the records. 14. To the pointed question by the Court as to ‘whether any of the Regulation applicable to the petitioner and the respondent-Corporation would enable the respondent- Corporation to hold enquiry after dismissing the petitioner’, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no such provision. However, it is his submission that the petitioner was Badli/Trainee employee then, as such, there was no need to hold an enquiry at all. 15. The fact that earlier order of termination was set-aside by this Court is not in dispute. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not reinstated before initiating the second disciplinary enquiry. The contention that the 2 (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 530 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 petitioner was a Badli/Trainee worker, as such, there was no need to hold a disciplinary enquiry, cannot be accepted, as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has interpreted the regulation of the respondent-Corporation to hold that even the Badli/trainee employee, would also be a workman. Thus, the protection granted to the workman under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, would available to the workman of respondent-Corporation. 16. In addition to that, it is also required to be noticed that the Court has set-aside the order of dismissal passed by the respondent-Corporation on earlier occasion and remitted the matter with a specific direction to hold enquiry. Thus, the contention that there was no need to hold enquiry cannot be accepted at all. 17. The judgment of the Apex Court in Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others (supra), would indicate that once the petitioner's dismissal order is set-aside and directed the employer to hold fresh enquiry, the employer is required to reinstate the workman. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 18. Even the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (supra) cited by the respondent- Corporation, would also would not come to the aid of the respondent- Corporation. In para No.16 of the said judgment, it is held as under: “16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same.” 19. The aforementioned paragraph would indicate that the proceeding should commence from the stage where it stood vitiated. Admittedly, earlier proceeding was held to be vitiated for want of notice to the petitioner. Thus, the proceeding stood vitiated from the inception itself. When the proceeding was initiated, the petitioner was a workman. Thus, the respondent-Corporation was under obligation to reinstate the petitioner, which has not happened. Thus, holding enquiry without reinstatement virtually amounts to holding enquiry against the petitioner who is virtually dismissed from employment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 Under these circumstances, impugned order has to be set-aside. 20. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court to seek redressal of his grievance, this Court is of the view that an alternative remedy being available to the petitioner, is not a complete bar to entertain a writ petition. 21. Since it is noticed that the proceeding initiated by the respondent No.2 is in violation of the law laid down by the Apex Court in (i) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others and (ii) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (supra), the Court is of the view that impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, especially in a situation where the petitioner pleaded for reinstatement before holding enquiry. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 22. Under these circumstances, the contention that the petitioner has to approach the Labour Court, is again not tenable. 23. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 01.09.2018 marked at Annexure-E is quashed. iii. The matter is remitted to the respondent-Corporation with a direction to hold a fresh enquiry, if it desirous to proceed against the petitioner. The respondent- Corporation before commencing the enquiry shall reinstate the petitioner. iv. Whether the respondent-Corporation intends to place the petitioner under suspension or not is left to the respondent- Corporation and Corporation is to be guided by the applicable Regulations. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16743 WP No. 103367 of 2022 v. It is made clear that whether the petitioner is entitled to any backwages or not, is not yet decided. It is to be decided at a relevant point of time, if such question arises. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/- CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31