- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 64611 OF 2011 (L-TER) BETWEEN: RAMAPPA S/O NEELAPPA GODIYAVAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BASTIBANA, LAXMESHWAR, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.57/2008 DATED 11/04/2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference No.57/2008 on the payroll of Labour Court, Hubli. 2. In terms of the said award, the petitioner's claim under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is allowed in part. The order dated 08.08.2025 dismissing the petitioner from employment is set aside. Punishment is modified with penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service without any backwages. 3. The respondent/Corporation has accepted the award. Petitioner is before this Court, assailing only to the extent of rejected portion of the prayer. 4. Certain facts which are not in dispute are as under: - Petitioner was the driver employed by the respondent- Corporation. On 14.03.1992, an accident took place and a cyclist died in the said accident. The petitioner-driver was driving the bus - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 at the time of accident. The respondent- Corporation initiated disciplinary inquiry, found the petitioner guilty of negligence and removed him from employment. - This order was called in question before the Labor Court after 13 years of the incident. It is noticed that petitioner was under suspension for 13 years. 5. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The parties were permitted to lead evidence. The Labour Court recorded the evidence and found that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence. Considering the history, the Court held that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct of negligence in driving. Thus, order of termination is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated without any backwages. In addition, the Labour Court also imposed a penalty of stoppage of 2 increments with cumulative effect. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court has given a categorical finding that the inquiry was not fair and proper and thereby, directed the parties to lead evidence. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 7. The respondent-Corporation was required to lead evidence to establish alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner. The eye witness is not examined. The police charge sheet is not marked and only based on the charge sheet produced in the domestic inquiry, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence. 8. In addition, it is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the criminal case filed against the petitioner, the competent Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner of charges relating to negligence. Thus, it is his contention that without there being any evidence, the Labour Court could not have said that the petitioner is guilty of contributory negligence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is responsible for the accident. On account of the accident, the cyclist who was riding the bicycle died and the respondent-Corporation had to pay huge compensation and the loss caused to the respondent-Corporation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 is directly attributable to the accident, which is result of negligent driving on the part of the petitioner-driver. 10. It is his further submission that even without producing the charge sheet, based on the other evidence available on record, the Labour Court has concluded that the negligence is established. 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 12. It is noticed that the domestic inquiry is held to be not fair and proper. Thus, the respondent-Corporation was under obligation to lead evidence to establish the alleged negligence on the part of the driver. Admittedly, no eye witness is examined. Police charge sheet is not produced. Only based on the evidence of the Inspector of the respondent- Corporation, the respondent- Corporation tried to establish the alleged negligence on the part of the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 13. The witness examined on the part of the respondent- Corporation has admitted that he has not seen the incident and that being the position, the Court is of the view that without there being any evidence, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner is responsible for the accident by holding that the petitioner has contributed to the accident. 14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is acquitted of charges in the criminal proceeding initiated based on the police investigation. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the order of termination is certainly illegal and without any evidence and finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner also contributed for the accident is also without any basis. 15. It is also required to be noticed that the respondent- Corporation has taken 13 years to conclude the inquiry and during that period he was under suspension. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that denial of back wages is wholly unjustified and stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is also unjustified as the charges are not established. Considering the circumstances, the Court is of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17063 WP No. 64611 of 2011 view that 50% backwages with 6% interest from the date of the award would meet the ends of justice. 16. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 11/04/2011 passed by The Principal Labour Court, Hubli in Reference No.57/2008 is set aside. (iii) Petitioner is entitled to back wages @ 50%. (iv) Interest @ 6% on 50% back wages shall be paid from the date of the award. (v) Petitioner is also entitled to all other consequential benefits. (vi) Backwages payable @ 50% shall be paid from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement after deducting suspension allowance paid. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 5