- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 62972 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC HUBLI DIVISION, R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI, R/BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI RACHAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA DADED , AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. MUNAVALLI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 09/12/2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN I.D.NO.124/2006, WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 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 by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 09.12.2010 passed in I.D.No.124/2006 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell are that the respondent/workman was working as a conductor with the petitioner/Corporation. On 15.03.1996, the management alleged that the respondent/workman committed certain acts of misconduct, by not issuing tickets to certain passengers. The management also alleged various other acts of misconduct against the workman. The Articles of charge was served on the workman, to which the workman submitted his reply on 14.12.2000. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted against the workman. On 05.02.2010, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the workman guilty of the allegations leveled against him. Subsequently, a copy of the enquiry report was sent to the workman seeking for his response. The reply submitted by the 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 workman having been found not satisfactory, the Disciplinary Authority, by its order dated 21.03.2001, reduced one increment of the workman for a period of five years, and also ordered to recover a sum of ₹33,128.50/- in 22 installments. Being aggrieved, the workman raised a dispute before the Tribunal. 3. The workman filed his claim statement arguing that the enquiry conducted against him was not fair and proper. He also challenged the order of punishment that was imposed as a result of the enquiry. The management filed its statement of objections and justified the order of punishment. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party is fair and proper? 2. Whether the management has proved the alleged misconduct against the first party? 3. Whether the first party claimant proves that the order passed by the respondent bearing No.NWKT : HBL : Shra : A-803(96) : 1862 dated 21.3.1998 by reducing his pay by two incremental stages permanently is illegal? 4. Whether the claim of the first party has become stale on account of delay and latches? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 5. Whether the first party is entitled for the relief as claimed? 6. What order? 4. It is also pertinent to note the proceedings of the Tribunal, which have been noticed in the final order dated 09.12.2010, which are as follows: “11. Issue No.1 has been treated as preliminary issue. Both parties have not adduced any oral evidence touching issue No.1. On 13.4.2010 my learned predecessor in office held issue No.1 in the negative on the ground that no documentary evidence is adduced by either side. Thereafter the matter was posted for evidence on remaining issues. Despite opportunity both parties have not evinced any interest to adduce evidence. Since both parties have not adduced any evidence the matter was posted for hearing on merits. 12. Heard the arguments addressed by Sri. M.H.Bhat the learned counsel for the workman who during his arguments has contended that since issue No.1 is held in the negative the burden is on the management to establish the allegations leveled against the workman and that since the management has not adduced any evidence reference needs to be allowed. Head the arguments addressed by Sri. B.Shivakumar shetty the learned counsel for the management who during his arguments has contended that since the workman has not adduced - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 any evidence the impugned order of punishment will have to be upheld. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the submissions made by either side.” (emphasis supplied) 5. Subsequently, the Tribunal, while adjudicating upon the issues framed by it, held as follows: “15. Since this Tribunal has held issue No.1 in the affirmative the burden is on the management to establish the alleged misconduct. The management has shown hostile attitude in unfolding the acts amounting to the alleged misconduct. The management has not shown any interest event to produce the relevant documents. Therefore in the absence of any oral and documentary evidence in support of the alleged misconduct it has to be held that the management has failed to establish the alleged misconduct of the workman. Since the management has failed to discharge its burden in establishing the alleged misconduct of the workman the workman is not under the obligation to establish that he is not guilty. As such the reference needs to be allowed. 16. Since the management has not challenged the order of reference by filing writ petition the management cannot contend that the claim of the workman has become stale on account of delay. 17. Since the management has failed to establish the alleged misconduct of the workman the workman is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 entitled to the relief claimed. Accordingly I answer issue Nos.2 to 5 as indicated above.” (emphasis supplied) 6. It is clear from the aforementioned that the issue No.1, which was treated as a preliminary issue by the order dated 13.04.2010, was answered in the negative, on the ground that no documentary evidence was adduced by both the sides. Subsequently, since the domestic enquiry was held to be not fair and proper, the Corporation was required to prove the alleged acts of misconduct against the workman. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the parties. The Tribunal, by its order dated 09.12.2010, held as follows: ORDER “Reference bearing No. Ka.E : 749 :IDM : 2006 dated 17.8.2006 under section 10(10)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under Secretary attached to the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore touching the order of punishment bearing No. WaKaRa : HuVi: Shra: A-803(96) : 1862 dated 21.3.1998 is hereby allowed. The impugned order of punishment bearing No.WaKaRa : HuVi : Shra : A-803(96) : 1863 dated 21.3.1998 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing two increments of the workman permanently is hereby set aside. The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits which are denied consequent upon the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11040 WP No. 62972 of 2012 order of punishment. The management shall work out the admissible monetary benefits which are denied consequent upon the impugned order of punishment and extend the same to the workman without any interest within six months from the date of publication of this award. In the circumstances I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this award be sent to the Government for publication as contemplated under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.” 7. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent/workman had already attained the age of superannuation in the year 2007. Having regard to the fact that the Corporation did not produce any material, either oral or documentary, before the Labour Court, and since the workman had already attained the age of superannuation, no further orders are required to be passed in the present writ petition. 8. Hence, the above writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34