- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 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. 64910 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. SURESH S/O. TIMMANNA GAONKAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. PADAVANI, TQ: KUMTA, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, UTTAR KANNADA DIVISION, SIRSI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE PART OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN KID NO.21/2007 DATED 24/07/2010 IN SO FAR AS DENYING THE BACK WAGES AND CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-K AND ETC. 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:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the workman calling in question the award dated 24.07.2010 passed in KID No.21/2007 by the Additional Labour Court Hubballi1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the workman was employed as a driver with the respondent-Corporation since the year 1988. It was alleged by the Corporation that on 08.08.1994, when he was driving the bus of the Corporation, he hit against another private bus. Alleging that he was negligent, charge sheet/articles of charge was issued. The workman replied to the same, denying the charge and further contending that due to mechanical defect i.e., the brake of the said vehicle not working properly, the accident occurred without any fault on the part of the workman. An Enquiry officer was appointed to submit his report. Thereafter, the workman by order dated 23.06.2007 was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved, the workman instituted proceedings under 1 Hereinafter for short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19872 and filed his claim statement. The respondent-Management entered appearance before the Labour Court and contested the same. The Labour Court by its award dated 24.07.2010 partly allowed the petition of the workman and passed the following order: “ AWARD a. Award is passed. b. Petition is allowed in part without costs. c. The order of dismissal of the 1st party- workman dated 23.06.2007 is hereby set aside. d. The 2nd Party-management is hereby directed to reinstate the 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 1st party-workman is not entitled to get any back wages and other consequential benefits. f. Send a copy of this award to the Government for publication. g. The Government is hereby directed to publish the award within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this award. 2 Hereinafter for short ‘ID Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 i. 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 present petition is filed by the workman. 4. The primary contention put forth by the counsel for the petitioner-workman is that the Labour Court having recorded a finding that the report of enquiry was perverse and having set aside the same, ought to have ordered for back wages and consequential benefits. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Labour Court, after appreciating the relevant material on record has held that the findings of the Enquiry authority are perverse and, set aside the said findings. Consequently, it also set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the workman from service based on the finding of the Enquiry authority. With regard to back wages, the Labour Court held as follows: “15. The workman was dismissed from service on 23.6.2007. The accident took place on 8.8.1994 and after lapse of nearly 13 years the workman was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 dismissed. There is an abnormal delay is disposing of the enquiry proceedings. Hence for the reasons stated above I am of the opinion that the management is not justified in dismissing the workman. With these observations my finding on issue no.2 is in the negative. 16. Issue No.3: In view of my findings on issue no.2, I am of the opinion that the workman is to be reinstated in to service with continuity of service. However the workman has not worked since 23.6.2007. Therefore on the principle of “no work no wages” I am of the opinion that the workman is not entitled to get back wages and other consequential benefits.” (emphasis supplied) 5. It is pertinent to note that the Labour Court has noticed that the accident occurred on 08.08.1994 and that the workman was dismissed from service on 23.06.2007, nearly after 13 years. The award of the Tribunal is passed on 24.07.2010. Hence on the ground of ”No work, No wages”, since the workman has not worked since 23.06.2007, the Labour Court has denied the back wages. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 6. Having regard to the fact that the findings of the Enquiry have been held to be perverse and the order of dismissal dated 23.06.2007 having been set aside, the Tribunal only on the principle of ‘no work, no wages’ has denied back wages and other consequential benefits. Since the dismissal of the workman has been set aside and the workman not having been allowed to work for no fault of his, it is just and proper that the workman be re-instated with full back wages. 7. In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for in the writ petition is liable to be granted. Hence the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The award dated 24.07.2010 passed in KID No.21/2007 by the Addl. Labour Court, Hubballi is modified to the extent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11039 WP No. 64910 of 2012 of setting aside the award of the Tribunal holding that the workman is not entitled to any back wages and other consequential benefits. iii) It is further ordered that the workman shall be entitled to full back wages together with all other consequential benefits. iv) The award of the Tribunal dated 24.07.2010, in all other respects remains unaltered. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42