- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 67784 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: PARASURAM S/O. RUDRAPPA SHIGGAONKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL, RESIDING AT POST: RATTIHALLI, TALUK: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REF. NO.22/2007 DATED 16.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/workman seeking for the following reliefs: (A) “Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the award passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in Ref.No.22/2007 dated 16.07.210 vide Annexure-G to meet the ends of justice; (B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ or order or direction, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits, to meet the ends of justice; (C) Grant such other relief or reliefs as deems fit under the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.” 2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the petitioner/workman was appointed as a trainee driver by the respondent/Corporation on 04.04.1994. Subsequently, the respondent/Corporation issued a show-cause notice/charge sheet dated 14/20.06.2001 to the workman, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 wherein, it is alleged that the workman had submitted affidavits dated 30.03.1994 and 08.07.1997 stating that he had neither been convicted nor involved in any criminal cases. However, it was later discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code1. The workman submitted a reply to the charges, stating that he had been acquitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, in S.C.No.108/94, by order dated 27.02.1996. He contended that the police authorities had falsely implicated him in the criminal case. However, without conducting any enquiry, the Corporation removed the workman from service with effect from 31.07.2001. The workman made a plea to the Corporation through a communication dated 26.07.2003, but the same was not favourably considered. Subsequently, the workman raised an industrial dispute. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred for adjudication and registered as Reference No.22/2007. The workman filed his claim statement, and the management submitted its response before the Labour Court. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 3. The workman examined himself as PW.1. Exs.W1 to Ex.W4 were marked in evidence. The management examined its representative as MW.1 and Exs.M1 to Ex.M11 were marked in evidence. The Labor Court, vide its award dated 16.07.2010, rejected the reference. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel Sri. Ravi Hegde for the petitioner/workman and the learned counsel Sri. Prashant S. Hosamani for the respondent/Corporation. 5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the workman that no false statements were made in the affidavits dated 30.03.1994 and 08.07.1997, and that the removal of the workman from service by the management is illegal and contrary to law. It is contended that, in the application submitted by the workman to the respondent/Corporation, there was no requirement to file any affidavit regarding the pendency of a criminal case. It is submitted that the Corporation erred in dismissing the workman, and the Labour Court also erred in rejecting the reference initiated by the workman. It is further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 contended that no enquiry was conducted, nor was any opportunity of hearing given to the workman before his dismissal from Service. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation justifying the award passed by the Labour Court contends that the workman having been appointed as a trainee, there was no requirement to conduct any enquiry. The workman having submitted a false affidavit, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the relevant aspect of the matter and rejected the reference, which order ought not to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition. 7. The submissions of the both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Labour Court have been perused. The questions that arise for consideration in the present petition are: (i) Whether the finding of the Labour Court that the workman had submitted false information at the time of filing the application and at the time of submitting the affidavits is just and proper? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 (ii) Whether the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the reference made by the workman? Regarding Question Nos.(i) and (ii): 8. The workman submitted an application dated 15.11.93 (Ex.M1) to the respondent/Corporation to be employed as a driver. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the application (Ex.M1) that there is no requirement for the workman to submit any affidavit or to make any statement regarding his involvement in criminal cases or convictions. 9. In the affidavit dated 30.03.1994 (Ex.M2), the workman has deposed as under: AFFIDAVIT I, Parasuram S/o. Rudrappa Shiggaonkar, age: “major”, R/o. Hubli, Selected for the post of Driver in KSRTC and issued with the offer of Appointment vide No. dated “hereby solemnly declare” and state that I have not been convicted in any criminal offence by any court of law or dismissed from service in this Corporation or any State Government or Central Government or any local bodies or any industrial, Commercial concerns or other State Transport Undertakings for an offence or for any misconduct. Further, I declare that I had never been removed or terminated for any offence or misconduct while working in the Corporation for any offence or misconduct while working in the Corporation for any disciplinary Proceedings and my name has not been removed from badali list or terminated as - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 temporary/probationer, by way of discharge simplicitor at any point of time. I do hereby declare that the facts stated above are true and correct and in case, it is found that the information furnished is false at a letter date I am liable for termination/dismissal from service apart from any criminal action being contemplated against me. Place:Hubli S/d/- Date:30/3/1994 DEPONENT I KNOW THE DEPONENT (K.T. AMBURE) ADVOCATE. (emphasis supplied) 10. In the affidavit dated 08.07.97 (Ex.M5), the relevant portion of the same reads as under: “3. That I am not involved in any criminal or economic offence as an accused and have not been convicted by any court of Law. 4. That I am neither suppressed any material facts or previous employment nor dismisses/removed from the services or the State Government or Central Government, Local bodies and State of Central Undertakings.” (emphasis supplied) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 11. In the show-cause notice/charge sheet dated 14/20.06.2001 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), the workman has been called upon to show cause regarding the following: “¢£ÁAPÀ:-30-03-1994 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ C¦üqÉ«mïzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À°è ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtPÀj¹gÀÄ«j. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 8-7-1997 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ C¦üqÉ«mïzÀ°èAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÆ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtPÀj¹gÀÄ«j. ¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀƪÀð£ÀqÉvÉAiÀÄÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ CgÀPÀëPÀ:C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è gÀnÖºÀ½î ¥ÉÆð¸À oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Áß ¸ÀASÉå:42:93PÀ®A:143, 147, 148, 323 307, 504 gÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A:149 L¦¹£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ DgÉÆæAiÀiÁV¢Ýj JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-10-93 gÀAzÀÄ WÀn¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.” 12. A certified copy of the judgment dated 27.02.1996, passed in Sessions Case No.108/1994 by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad (Ex.W4), discloses that the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.4 in the said proceedings and was acquitted of the offences alleged against the accused persons under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 13. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that in the affidavit dated 30.03.1994, the petitioner has merely stated that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 he had not been convicted in any criminal case. The said statement cannot be held to be false/incorrect, as there is no material on record to show that, as on that date, the petitioner had been convicted in any criminal case. In the affidavit dated 08.07.1997, the workman stated that he was not involved in any criminal or economic offence as an accused and had not been convicted by any court of law. The said statement also cannot be considered false/incorrect, having regard to the judgment of acquittal dated 27.09.1996. As on the date of the second affidavit dated 08.07.1997, there were no criminal proceedings shown to be pending against the petitioner, nor had he been convicted by any Court of law. Hence, it is clear that the charges alleged against the petitioner that he has submitted a false affidavit is erroneous. 14. The Labour Court while appreciating the relevant factual matrix of the matter held as follows: “16. In this case the claimant submitted false information at the time of filing the application and also at the time of submitting the affidavits declaring that he was involved neither in criminal proceedings nor convicted by any Court even though he was involved in criminal proceedings of Rattihalli Police Station Cr.No.42/93. There is no dispute regarding involvement of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 claimant in criminal case registered by Rattihalli Police in Cr.No.42/93.” 15. It is clear and forthcoming from the award that the Labour Court, after noticing and appreciating the relevant factual matrix as well as the material on record, has recorded a finding without adequately appreciating the documentary evidence that the workman submitted false information at the time of filing the application. The said finding of the Labour Court is erroneous, contrary to law and liable to be interfered with. 16. It is clear from the aforementioned that the sole ground, on which, the petitioner was removed from service pursuant to the charge sheet/show-cause notice dated 14/20.06.2001 (Annexure-A), is erroneous and the same is liable to be interfered with. 17. Having regard to the period consumed in pendency of the present proceedings, and having regard to the fact that the removal/termination of the workman is required to be interfered with, it is just and proper that if the respondent/Corporation is directed to reinstate the workman into service as expeditiously as possible in any event not later than 30 days from the date of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 receipt of copy of this order, without back wages and with continuity of service, the same would meet the ends of justice. The back wages is not awarded having regard to the fact that the workman is a driver, who, in normal circumstances, would have easily found alternative employment. Hence, point No.(i) is answered in the negative and point No.(ii) in the affirmative. 18. In view of the aforementioned, the following: ORDER (i) The above petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 16.07.2010 passed in REF.No.22/2007 by the Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli, is set aside. (iii) The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith, in any event, not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with the continuity of service and without back wages. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821 WP No. 67784 of 2010 (iv) The respondent shall assign appropriate work to the petitioner subject to the petitioner meeting the requisite requirements/criteria. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2