- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27769 WP No. 48011 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 48011 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE GENERAL MANAGER KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. C. NARASIMHA RAJU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.50A, 4TH CROSS, KSRTC LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR II PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUDATH B S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, QUASHING THE AWARD AT ANNEXURE-E MADE IN I.D.NO.05/2008 DATED 25/05/2012 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27769 WP No. 48011 of 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER ON I.A.1/2024 AND I.A.2/2024 I.A.1/2024 is filed to recall the order dated 23.11.2017 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution. I.A.2/2024 is filed to condone the delay of 1958 days in filing the application to recall the order dated 23.11.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent seriously objected to both the applications on the premise that no ground is made out to recall the order dismissing the petition for non-prosecution. It is also his further submission that delay of 1958 days is not properly explained in filing the application to recall the said order dated 23.11.2017 dismissing the petition for non-prosecution. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that before the petition was dismissed for non- prosecution there was a peremptory order and at that point of time the learned counsel, who represented the petitioner was a different counsel. He would further submit that there was just a delay of 10 days in complying the order passed by this Court and dismissal was not noticed as it was a peremptory order. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27769 WP No. 48011 of 2012 4. Accepting the cause shown, the delay is condoned and order dated 23.11.2017 is recalled. I.A.1/2024 and I.A.2/2024 are allowed. Petition is restored to file. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. After noticing the impugned order, it is noticed that the penalty of dismissal imposed by the petitioner-corporation is set aside by the Labour Court in a dispute raised under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also noticed that the Labour Court has held that the penalty of dismissal is erroneous inasmuch as the approval is not obtained under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and as one more dispute was pending consideration concerning the charter of demand. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27769 WP No. 48011 of 2012 8. This being the position, there is no dispute that when the order of penalty of dismissal was passed, a dispute concerning the respondent pertaining to charter demand was pending consideration and the employer was required to obtain necessary approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Said procedure is not followed. Under these circumstances, following the law laid down in the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited v. Ram Gopal Sharma and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 643, the Labour Court has set aside the order of dismissal from service. This Court does not find any error in the said award and the said award is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jaipur Zilla Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank supra. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no merit in the petition. Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SBN