- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 24854 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI UDAYA K SON OF SRI KADAPPA GOWDA, R/A. RADHAKRISHNA COMPOUND OPP. AMBEDKAR BHAVANA, CHRISTIAN COLONY, HOSANAGARA TOWN HOSNAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577418. PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK V S.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C. MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU-4 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T ., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. FILED PRAYING TOCALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-L.QUASH THE ORDER DTD18.7.2017 ON DOMESTIC ENQUIRY ISSUE AND AWARD DTD28.8.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN IDA NO.10/2015 DTD28.8.2017 THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-K AND L RESPECTIVELY, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS.DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WORKMAN IN HIS ORIGINAL Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 POST WITH FULL BACK WAGES, CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This petition is filed assailing the award dated 28.08.2017 in IDA No.10/2015, on the file of the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. The dispute raised by the petitioner/workman under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is rejected. 2. Certain facts are not disputed. The petitioner was an employee of the respondent-Corporation and was working as Driver-cum-Conductor. On 26.11.2013, he was on duty from Udupi to Mangaluru. The bus left Udupi at 8.p.m in the evening, reached Bengaluru on 27.11.2013, in the morning. On 27.11.2013, in the evening, the petitioner left Bangalore on duty and reached Udupi on 28.11.2013 in the morning. On 28.11.2013 in the morning, few persons kidnapped the petitioner and later assaulted him. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 3. The petitioner lodged a complaint against the said persons. Later on the same day, one more complaint was registered against the petitioner in Nelamangala Police Station alleging that on the way from Udupi to Bangalore on 26.11.2013, the petitioner sexually assaulted a lady passenger in the bus. The complaint is lodged by the lady victim. 4. The Police registered a criminal case against the petitioner and the petitioner was charge sheeted. In the charge sheet, the travelers statement was recorded to the effect that the petitioner has sexually assaulted the lady passenger who was traveling on 26.11.2013 from Udupi to Bangalore. 5. Thereafter it appears that KSRTC conducted primary enquiry and a report was submitted holding that the petitioner has committed sexual assault. Later, the charge sheet was issued and domestic enquiry was conducted. The petitioner denied the charges in the disciplinary enquiry, and the respondent employer viz. one Madhusudan Naik, an enquiry Officer who submitted the Primary report was examined and the Disciplinary Authority found the petitioner guilty, and the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 Enquiry Officer held that the charges leveled against the petitioner are partially proved, and therefore, terminated the petitioner from the service. 6. The petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court under Section 10(4A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the disciplinary enquiry was fair and proper. The parties led the evidence of alleged victimization on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and the Disciplinary Authority was examined. The Labour Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the alleged incident is not proved. The complainant and the driver were not examined. The petitioner is found guilty on the basis of the statement of the officer who has submitted the primary report. It is further submitted that no eye witnesses were examined, and only circumstantial evidence was placed before the Labour Court and the Disciplinary Authority to establish the charges against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that in the incident alike-- to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 secure the eye-witness and it is duty on the part of the respondent-Corporation to place proper evidence on record, and the officer who has conducted the primary enquiry has submitted a report holding that the incident has taken place and he was examined before the Disciplinary Authority. Later, the Labour Court also found that the disciplinary enquiry is fair and proper and when the evidence was led relating to the lady victim, the Disciplinary Authority has been examined and taking all these facts into consideration, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at Bar and perused the records. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has lodged the complaint on 28.11.2013 alleging assault on him. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assaulted by the relatives of the lady passenger but as a counter blast a complaint is filed against the petitioner after realizing that a complaint is lodged against the relatives of the lady passenger. 11. The Driver of the bus is alleged to have given a statement before the Police during the investigation but has not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 been examined by the respondent-Corporation in the disciplinary enquiry. The lady victim/complainant is not examined by the respondent-Corporation in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority relying solely on the report of the Officer who has submitted the primary report found the petitioner to be guilty, but no eye witness to the incident had been examined in the disciplinary enquiry. 12. Even before the Labour Court, the respondent - Corporation has not examined any of the persons stated to have witnessed the alleged incident. No substantial evidence is placed to accept the version of the respondent-Corporation. This being the position, this Court is of the view that findings in the disciplinary enquiry is wholly erroneous and entire case is based on the hearsay. The Labour Court has proceeded on the report of the officer who submitted the primary report as proof of the alleged incident. 13. It is submitted at the bar, that the criminal case registered in C.C.No.1803/2014 against the petitioner has also ended in acquittal of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 the impugned award has to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside, and the findings recorded in the disciplinary enquiry too has to be set aside, and is accordingly set aside. 14. The impugned award dated 28.8.2017 is set aside and the impugned order dated 18.07.2017 holding that the disciplinary enquiry is proper, is also quashed. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that payment of back wages is not awarded in the circumstances where the impugned award is set aside. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was wrongly terminated from the service and he was not allowed to work because of the act of the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner has lost his employment for a long period and hence the petitioner is entitled for full back wages. 17. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was driver cum conductor and he was dismissed from services on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24957 WP No. 24854 of 2018 23.07.2015. It is difficult to believe from that date till today, he was not in employment. Considering the experience as driver cum conductor, this Court has to assume that he was in some sort of employment. 19. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to full backwages. This Court is of the view that the interest of justice would meet in case he is awarded 50% of backwages. Accordingly, the respondent shall pay 50% backwages with consequential benefits and continuity of services, within 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. 20. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE HR