- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11042 WP No. 64295 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. 64295 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SIDDARAMAYYA S/O. BASAYYA AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, T.C.NO.609, R/O. RAGHOJI COMPLEX, NEAR T.V. STATION, REVANASIDDESHWAR COLONY, GULBARGA. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN I.D.NO.232/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY MAY PLEASE TO DISMISS I.D. NO.232/2009 FILED BY RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, 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:11042 WP No. 64295 of 2012 ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the petitioner-Corporation calling in question the award dated 28.10.2011 passed in I.D.No.232/2009 by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the respondent was working as a conductor with the Corporation and it was alleged that on 24.05.2002 when he was conducting the bus, he failed to issue tickets to a group of five passengers and failed to collect the fare amount of ₹4/- each. It was further alleged that the respondent failed to close the way bill entry against stage No.8 despite carrying cross mark. The workman submitted his reply to the Articles of charge. An enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently. Being aggrieved, the workman raised reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11042 WP No. 64295 of 2012 3. The Corporation entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the pleadings. The Tribunal by its award dated 28.10.2011 partly allowed the reference and ordered as follows: “ORDER Reference bearing No.Ka.E: 404: IDG:2009 dated 25.4.2009 under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under Secretary attached to the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby allowed in part. The impugned order of punishment bearing No. Ee Ka Ra Sa: Gu Vi : Shi Sha: 920: 2002: 357: 2007 dated 11.1.2007 of the Disciplinary Authority reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently is hereby set aside and by way of modification, it is ordered that one increment of the workman of the year 2002 be withheld without cumulative effect for a period of one year only which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments. The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits in tune with this modified order of punishment. The management shall work out the admissible monetary benefits in tune with this modified order of punishment and extend the admissible monetary benefits to the workman without any interest within six months - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11042 WP No. 64295 of 2012 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.” 4. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition. 5. The Tribunal, upon an appreciation of the material on record, has recorded a finding that the misconduct as alleged stands established. With regard to punishment imposed, the Tribunal has recorded the following finding: “15. Since the misconduct is established, the next question that poses for consideration is whether the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is on the higher side. The punishment imposed in this case is of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently. Admittedly the misconduct alleged in this case is of NINC of Rs.20/. Admittedly there were 42+2 passengers in the bus at the time of checking. Further the management has not produced any documents to show that the workman earlier had also involved in some other cases of this nature. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11042 WP No. 64295 of 2012 Therefore, by considering the materials on record and by looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the punishment imposed is on the higher side and disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. But, for the proved misconduct, in my view, instead of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently, withholding of one increment of the workman of the year 2002 for a period of one year only without cumulative effect which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments of the workman would meet the ends of justice. To that extent the workman is entitled to the relief. Accordingly I answer issue Nos. 2 and 3 as indicted above.” (emphasis supplied) 6. The Tribunal, while noticing the misconduct alleged as well as the fact that there were no earlier instances where the workman is alleged to have being involved in cases of the said nature, has interfered with the order of punishment and has also afforded submission reasons for the same. In view of the aforementioned, keeping in mind the scope of interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 226 and 227 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11042 WP No. 64295 of 2012 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-corporation has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal is required to be interfered with. Hence, the above writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. 7. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YAN CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41