- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 69297 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: 1. 1A. V.F. TOTAGER, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY HIS LR’S., SMT. PARAVVA W/O V. TOTAGER, AGE. 48 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. DHARWAD. 1B. ISWAR VEERUPAXAPPA, AGE: 28 YEARS, 1C. NANDA V. TOTAGER, AGE: 24 YEARS, 1D. VIMALA V. TOTAGER, AGE: 22 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. DHARWAD. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC GADAG DIVISION, GADAG … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE ANY ORDER OR DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REFERENCE NO.60/2004 DATED: 06/03/2010, AWARDING ONLY RS.50,000/- AS A COMPENSATION PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award dated 06.03.2010. In terms of which, the claim petition filed by the Ex-employee of the KSRTC respondent/Corporation is allowed in part. The order of termination is held to be invalid on the premise that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorised absence with effect from 01.03.1994 to 28.06.1994. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that the unauthorised absence is not established. The petitioner, the former employee was prevented from attending to duty on account of unavoidable circumstances and ill health and his leave application was not considered. The contention of the petitioner that, he had sustained injury while officiating as a Conductor as such, he could not attend to the duty. This contention was not accepted on the premise that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 medical evidence was not sufficient to accept the contention. However, the Tribunal has held that the order of dismissal from employment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Since the workman had died by then, the penalty of dismissal is set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the evidence on record was more than sufficient to hold that the absence was justified as he had sustained injury. And in the alternative, he would submit that the payment of compensation of ₹50,000/- is not justified. It is urged that it is too meager given the fact that the Conductor was aged 35 years when he was removed from service and thus, would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Faridan vs State of Uttar Pradesh1. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation would urge that the unauthorised absence from 01.03.1994 to 28.06.1994 is very much established and the petitioner's 1 (2010) 1 SCC 497 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 contention that he had suffered injury is not supported by any evidence and the Labor Court is justified in holding that the charges are proved. It is his further contention that the award of ₹50,000/- is just and reasonable given the fact that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and it is also submit that there was a delay of nine years in raising the dispute. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. It is not in dispute that the former employee of respondent/Corporation who raised the dispute challenging the order of dismissal died during the pendency of proceeding before the Labour Court. 7. The proceeding was prosecuted by his legal representatives. The Labour Court has found that the charges of unauthorised absence is very much established. The contention that the workman had suffered an injury and was unable to attend duty is not established. Thus unauthorized absence stands established. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 8. In addition to that, the Labour Court has also held that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate given the misconduct alleged and Labour Court has also indicated that he could have been reinstated into service with minor penalty of deducting increments. Since the original claimant was not alive when the award was passed, the Labour Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act has awarded ₹50,000/- as compensation. 9. It is also noticed that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court does not carry any interest. 10. It is also noticed that the Labour Court has awarded interest of 6% per annum, in case, the award is not paid within 30 days from the date of the award. Admittedly, the compensation is not paid. The respondent/Corporation has not assailed the award. 11. Now the question is whether ₹50,000/- is adequate or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was aged around 35 years when he was removed from service. He died during - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16863 WP No. 69297 of 2010 the pendency of the proceeding before the Labour Court. The exact date of death is not forthcoming. Assuming that workman was reinstated, he would have been in service only till the date of his death. The legal representatives are brought on record on 03.11.2009. It appears that, the original claimant died in the year 2009. That would mean he would have worked for 14 years if he had been reinstated. 12. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that an additional compensation of ₹1,50,000/- is justified. 13. The amount shall be paid within 30 days from today, in case the amount is not paid, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from this date. 14. With the above observation the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CHS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 7