- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 67020 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N W K R T C, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBBALLI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.R. BENTUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. YELLAPPA S/O SHIVAJI PATOLI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KATKOL, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELGAUM. … RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD MADE IN KID NO.17/2009 DATED 28/01/2011 (ANNEXURE-‘A’) PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI. 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:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award dated 28.01.2011 in KID No.17/2009 on the file of the Additional Labour Court, Hubballi. 2. The respondent was a conductor under the petitioner and disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent on the premise that he has not issued tickets to the passengers on 06.09.2007. After holding disciplinary enquiry, he was removed from service. 3. The respondent/employee raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter, both the parties were permitted to lead evidence. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that the charges are proved however, the Labour Court held that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 5. From paragraph No.10 of the impugned award, it is noticed that the Labour Court has referred to Ex.M.12 which reveals 62 past misconduct on the part of the respondent. The Labour Court holds that after having shown leniency to the respondent on 62 occasions, it could not have dismissed the petitioner from service. Considering the misconduct that is proved, the Court has held that the respondent is to be reinstated with continuity of service and without backwages and other consequential benefits and apart from that, the Labour Court has also held that two increments of the respondent are to be withheld for two years without cumulative effect. 6. Aggrieved by this award, the employer is before this Court. 7. The respondent though served is not before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Labour Court could not have interfered with the penalty of dismissal. The leniency shown by the petitioner/Corporation in favour of respondent in imposing light penalty on 62 earlier occasions for his misconduct should not be a ground to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the employer. It is further urged that since the misconduct is proved, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the award on the premise that the penalty of dismissal is not justified. 9. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 10. The findings of the Labour Court that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct is not questioned by the respondent/employee. It is noticed from the impugned award that on 62 occasions earlier to the penalty of dismissal imposed, the petitioner/employer has imposed minor penalty on the respondent/employee. On 63 occasion - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 he has been removed from service. This order of the employer imposing penalty of dismissal from service by taking into the past misconduct on 63 occasions earlier cannot be held to be erroneous so as to interfere in exercise of Section 11A jurisdiction under The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. It is also submitted that the petitioner wanted to reinstate the respondent without prejudice to the contentions raised in the petition however, till today after the passing of the award, the respondent has not reported to duty. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that since the matter is pending before this Court, no fresh disciplinary action is initiated against the respondent. 13. For the reasons already recorded above, this Court is of the view that the Labour Court could not have interfered with the order of penalty of dismissal when it is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15348 WP No. 67020 of 2011 found that the respondent is guilty of misconduct and on 63 occasions earlier, and has been imposed minor penalties. Despite 63 minor penalties imposed, the respondent has not mended his attitude and conduct. 14. Hence the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 28/01/2011 passed by the Additional Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.17/2009 is set-aside. Consequently, the workman’s claim is rejected. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 8