- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 66986 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF N.W.K.R.T.C. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, SIRSI (U.K.), NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI BASAVANNEPPA S/O. GURAPPA KERI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: C/O: IBRAHIM SHAIKH, AMBA NILAYA, KALLAMMANAKERE, YELLAPUR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD MADE IN KID. NO.50/2010 DATED 15/04/2011 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI 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:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question, the award dated 15.04.2011 in KID No.50/2010 by the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi, whereunder, the petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes(Karnataka Amendment Act, 1988)Act 19471 has been partly allowed and the order of dismissal dated 29.04.2010 passed by the Corporation was set aside and the Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent- workman into service without back wages but with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 2. The relevant factual matrix leading to the present petition are that the respondent-workman was appointed as a conductor with the Corporation and he was issued with articles of charge/charge sheet alleging that, on 27.01.2004 when the workman was conducting the bus, it was found that workman failed to issue tickets to two passengers and 1 Hereinafter for short ‘ID Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 not collected fare amount of Rs.7/- each, who were travelling from stage No.4 to stage No.1, that the workman had not closed the waybill entry against stage No.3. In the enquiry, it was held that the charges have been proved, based on which, vide order dated 29.04.2010, the workman was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the workman filed KID No.50/2010 under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act. The Corporation entered appearance before the labour Court and contested the proceedings. The labour Court held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Subsequently, the management got examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and marked exhibit M1 to M65. The workmen did not lead any evidence. The Labour Court upon appreciating the material on record, held that the workman had no intention to pilfer any revenue and that he was still in the process of issuing tickets. It was further held that the workman was slow in issuing tickets. It was further held that there was no revenue loss to the Corporation. Noticing the said aspect, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the Management - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 had failed to prove the charges against the workman. The Management had also not produce documents in support of its contention that the workman was involved in 35 past cases. Noticing the same, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman was required to be reinstated into service. However, it ordered that the workman was not entitled to back wages and other consequential benefits. Hence, the Labour Court partly allowed the petition and passed the following award:- “AWARD a. Award is passed. b. Claim petition is allowed in part without costs. c. The order of management bearing No. DEO No. 137/2010 dated 29.4.2010 (ªÁgÁ¸Á: GPÀ: ²¸ÀÄÛ: 139(2004)/1417 dated 29.4.2010) dismissing the workman from service is hereby set aside. d. The 2nd party-management is hereby directed to reinstate 1st party-workman in to service with continuity of service, within 30 days from the date of publication of the award by the government. e. The petitioner-workman is not entitled to get back wages from the date of dismissal till he is reinstated in to service and other consequential benefits. f. Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 g. The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this award. h. The Government is hereby directed to intimate both parties about the publication of award by registered post acknowledgement due, without fail.” 3. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition. 4. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-workman. 5. Although, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel the petitioner that the order of the Labour Court is erroneous and liable to be interfered with, in view of the factual matrix as noticed above, keeping in mind the fact that the Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, as also keeping in mind the fact that there was no monetary loss to the Corporation and that the Labour Court has not noticed any specific oral or documentary evidence on record, while holding that the charges against the workman are not proved, also keeping - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11966 WP No. 66986 of 2011 in mind the fact that the petitioner has not produced any material in support of his contention that there were 35 past cases against the workman, the Labour Court was justified in ordering for reinstatement of the workman. 6. Although, the workman has not challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, keeping in mind the factual matrix as noticed above, it is just and proper that this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disposed of this present writ petition to modify the award of the Labour Court to the extent of holding that, the workman is required to be reinstated with 20% back wages. 7. The award of the Labour Court, in all other respects, remains unaltered. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5