- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 106608 OF 2025 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANTH S/O. NAGAPPA GOUDAR, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED DRIVER, R/O: KUMBARGALLI – 581 329, TAL: HALIYAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUVEER R. SATTIGERI & SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC CENTRL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI 580 030. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC UTTAR KANNADA DIVISION, SIRSI – 581 401. 3. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD – 580 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.S.KINI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 23.06.2025 SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNEXURES A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY AND TO, A) RESTORE THE PAY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ORIGINAL POSITION AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO THE PUNISHMENT ORDER DATED 24.01.2003. B) PAY ALL ARREARS OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES, INCLUDING INCREMENTAL BENEFITS AND TIME-BOUND FIXATIONS, FROM 24.01.2003 ONWARD, AS PER THE CALCULATION TABLE PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE B. C) REFUND VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,813/- THAT WAS WRONGLY RECOVERED FROM THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: I. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the Representations dated 23.06.2025 submitted to the Respondents by the Petitioner as per Annexures A, A1 and A2 respectively and to, a) restore the pay of the petitioner to the original position as it stood prior to the punishment order dated 24.01.2003. b) pay all arrears of pay and allowances, including incremental benefits and time-bound fixations, from 24.01.2003 onward, as per the calculation table produced as per Annexure B. c) Refund the amount of Rs. 6,813/- that was wrongly recovered from the Petitioner. II. Issue such other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard the learned counsels Sri.Raghuveer R Sattigeri and Sri.Chetan Munnoli appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri.N.S.Kini for the respondents. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 3. The petitioner was appointed as a driver on probation on 05.06.1985 and the probation was extended upto 18.01.1988. The petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction in basic pay to minimum scale and recovery of an amount of ₹6,813/- in 10 instalments was imposed. This was called in question by the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal I.D.No.255/2014 and the Tribunal rejects the reference by confirming the order of punishment. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner prefers W.P.No.112664 of 2019, which comes to be allowed. After the writ petition gets allowed, the petitioner submits a representation for restoration of pay of the year 2003 and grant all consequential benefits. The representation has not merited consideration. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once this Court had reversed the order of penalty and directed all consequential benefits to be granted, it was axiomatic that the petitioner would get the restoration of pay. The learned counsel submits that it is axiomatic restoration of pay and submits that the petition be allowed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri.N.S.Kini appearing for the Corporation submits, the Corporation has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge upon which reliance is placed by the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is in the nature of seeking arrears of salary or back wages for which the petitioner has to approach the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as there is no determination of how much the petitioner would be entitled to in the case at hand. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events and the dates are all a matter of record. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.112664/2019 disposed off on 16th February 2024 allows the claim of the petitioner by the following Order: “1. On the charge that the petitioner had driven the bus in rash and negligent manner resulting in an accident, which resulted in fatality, an enquiry was conducted against the workman. The charges were held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer and ultimately the disciplinary authority proceeded to impose a punishment - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 of reducing the basic pay of the workman to the minimum scale and also directed to recovery of one month salary in ten equal installments. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised a dispute, but the Labour Court on an appreciation of the matter has refused to accept the dispute and has rejected the claim. Consequently, the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court in W.P. No.24370/2019, disposed off on 13 th September 2022 has held that in cases were the KSRTC had taken up the plea in the motor vehicle proceedings that there was no negligence on the part of its driver, it cannot be permitted to initiate proceedings against the workman on the departmental side, on the contradictory stand that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part its employee. 3. In this case also, admittedly, the KSRTC has taken up the stand before the MACT that there was no rash or negligent on the part of its employee. The KSRTC would therefore be estopped from initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner, which has culminated in the impugned punishment and award. 4. Learned counsel for the Corporation however submits that, this is a case in which there is a delay of nine years in raising a dispute and therefore the Labour Court has rightly refused to exercise its discretion. 5. In my view, since the issue raised against the petitioner has been covered by the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No.24370/2019, the question of delay would pale into insignificance. 6. As held by this Court, the KSRTC cannot be permitted to take up a contradictory stand regarding the same incident and the impugned award would therefore be contrary to the said decision and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and so also the order of punishment that is imposed on the petitioner. The petition is accordingly allowed.” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17210 WP No. 106608 of 2025 8. The petitioner has submitted a representation. The representation has not merited consideration. Therefore, the respondent Corporation shall now consider the representation in accordance with law and pass necessary orders thereon within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 9. While so doing it shall bear in mind the entitlement of the petitioner and the fact that the penalty that is imposed upon the petitioner has stood obliterated which would mean that it would relate back to the date of its order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38