- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11384 WP No. 66652 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 66652 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SAREGE SADAN, MAIN ROAD, GULBARGA, 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA, BOTH THE PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED AT PRESENT BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SAREGE SADAN, GULBARGA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: BASAPPA S/O. SAHEBGOUDA ALOOR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O: AT POST: DHUTTARGAON, TQ: ALAND, DIST: GULBARGA. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 10/11/2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBLI IN YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11384 WP No. 66652 of 2011 I.D.NO.10/2007 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY 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 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 10.11.2010 passed in I.D.No.10/2007 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent/workman, who was employed as a conductor with the petitioners/Corporation, was alleged to have not issued a ticket of the value of ₹6/- on 03.08.1997, and further, to have failed to issue tickets worth ₹2/- each to three passengers. A checking squad of the Corporation re-iterated the said allegations to the management, collected fine amount from the passengers as a penalty, and seized the unpunched tickets from the workman. That the Articles of charge were served on the workman, who failed to offer any explanation. The management without conducting a domestic enquiry, by order dated 04.12.1997, 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11384 WP No. 66652 of 2011 imposed a penalty by reducing three increments of the workman without cumulative effect, and also ordered that the workman would not be entitled to any annual increments during the next three years. Being aggrieved, the workman raised an industrial dispute before the Tribunal, which was referred for adjudication. 3. The workman filed his claim petition alleging that no domestic enquiry was conducted. The Corporation filed its statement of objections as well as additional statement of objections, contending, inter alia, that since the punishment imposed was a minor one, it was not necessary to hold a domestic enquiry. 4. The workman examined himself as WW.1. The management has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal by its award dated 10.11.2010, set aside the order of punishment dated 04.12.1997. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed by the Corporation. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the order of the Labour Court is erroneous and liable to be set aside, since the alleged misconduct resulted in a breach of trust between the Corporation and its employee. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11384 WP No. 66652 of 2011 6. It is pertinent to note here that the Corporation imposed the punishment without conducting any domestic enquiry. Although before the Tribunal, it was contended that the punishment imposed was a minor one, and therefore, a domestic enquiry was not required, the management did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal. Furthermore, in the present writ petition, the said ground justifying the order of punishment without holding an enquiry has not been urged. 7. In view of the fact that the Corporation has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of its contention before the Tribunal, the above writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17