- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 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. 67771 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC GADAG DIVISION, GADAG, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: NIMMBAPPA S/O. HONKERAPPA KALASANNAVAR AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. OKKALGERI ONI, NEAR NO.3 SCHOOL, GADAG, TQ: & DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, 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 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS SET ASIDE THE PUNISHMENT ORDER OF DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER GADAG AND DIRECTION TO PAY THE ARREARS TO THE WORKMAN WITHIN SIX MONTHS BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBLI IN ID NO.51/2008 DATED 10-11-2010 WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT "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:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the Corporation calling in question the award dated 10.11.2010 passed in ID No.51/2008 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli1. 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent-workman was employed by the petitioner-Corporation as a driver and articles of charge has been issued by the petitioner- Corporation against the respondent-workman alleging that on 15.01.2004, when he was driving the bus of the Corporation, he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a lorry causing an accident. That there was no entry on the road on which the workman drove the bus and thereby he violated the traffic rules. The passengers of the bus sustained injuries and the Management incurred a sum of ₹13,424/- towards the 1 Hereinafter for short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 repair of the bus. Hence it is alleged that the act of the workman tantamount to a misconduct. 3. The workman replied to the said charges. Not being satisfied, an enquiry officer was appointed, who conducted an enquiry and submitted a report holding that the misconduct stands proved. Thereafter the workman was notified and his reply was sought. Not being satisfied with the reply, the Management passed an order of punishment reducing the basic salary of the workman for two stages and ordering for recovery of a sum of ₹ 10,618/- in 20 instalments from the workman and ordered that the period of suspension of the workman be treated as period not on duty. 4. Being aggrieved, the workman initiated proceedings before the Tribunal. The Corporation entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the same. The Tribunal, by its order dated 10.11.2010 partly allowed the reference and ordered as follows: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 ORDER The reference bearing No. PÁE: 91: LrJA 2008 dated 16.2.2008 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 The impugned order hereby allowed in part. The impugned order (copy at Ex.M.36) bearing No. ªÁPÀgÀ : ¸Á : C¥À :(04/04) 421 dated 26.5.2007 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing two increments of the workman permanently is hereby set aside. The order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.10,618/- in twenty installments from the workman and ordering that the period of suspension of the workman as the period not on duty shall stand unaltered. The workman is entitled to the admissible monetary benefits in tune with the modified order of punishment. The management shall work out the admissible monetary benefits in tune with the modified order and extend the same to the workman without interest within six months from the date of publication of this award. In 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.” - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 5. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition. 6. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation that the Tribunal having held that the misconduct stands proved, erred in interfering with the order of punishment. 7. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent workman justifies the order of the Tribunal and further submitted that the Tribunal has not set aside the entire order of punishment and has only interfered with a portion of the same. 8. The Tribunal while considering the aspect of punishment held as follows: “15. Since the misconduct stands established the next question would be whether the impugned order of punishment is justified or not. It is not made out by the management that there was any signal intimating that the said road was one way. It is not the contention of the management that the workman was very well aware of the fact that the said road was one - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 way. Keeping this in mind the Disciplinary Authority ought to have applied mind while imposing punishment. In my view, the order of punishment is bit on higher side. In my view, the order of punishment reducing two increments of the workman needs to be set aside maintaining test of the portion of the order of punishment. To that extent the workman is entitled to the relief. Accordingly I answer issue Nos. 2 to 4 as indicated above.” (emphasis supplied) 9. It is forthcoming that, after upholding that the misconduct stands proved, the Tribunal has set aside the order reducing the two increments of the workman permanently, while upholding the order for recovery of a sum of ₹ 10,618/- in twenty instalments as also treating the period of suspension of the workman as not on duty. 10. It is pertinent to note here that the Tribunal has rightly interfered with the order of punishment to the extent of reducing two increments permanently. The order of the Tribunal wherein it has upheld the recovery of ₹ 10,618/- and for treating the period of suspension as period not on duty itself is punishment for the misconduct that has been - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11019 WP No. 67771 of 2011 alleged against the workman. Having regard to the scope of interference of this Court to interfere with the order of punishment as held by the Tribunal, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the order of punishment that has been ordered upon by the Tribunal. 11. In view of the aforementioned, the above writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24