- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22367 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. P.M.MANJUNATH, S/O. P.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KODIUGANE VILLAGE, VENKATAYANA CHATRA POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016 ORAL ORDER Sri.Kantharaja V., counsel for the petitioner, appeared through video conferencing and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person. 2. The petition averments are as follows: The petitioner was employed in the Corporation’s establishment and was proceeded against departmentally for the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence. Consequently, Articles of Charge were issued against him. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a report concluding that the charges stood proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry report and, by order dated 28.06.2012, dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, he raised a dispute in I.I.D.No.34/2012. the Labor Court vide order dated 18.08.2014 allowed the petition in part, and the entitlement to backwages was declined. The petition is filed as far as the denial of back wages is concerned. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016 Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court’s decision denying back wages is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was placed under suspension in 2009, the order revoking the suspension was never communicated to him. Therefore, it is argued that the charges levelled against him are unfair and that he is entitled to back wages. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suspension order was issued on 23.10.2009 and was subsequently revoked on 22.03.2010. It is also stated that the Corporation had stopped paying suspension allowance thereafter. Hence, the petitioner’s claim that he was unaware of the revocation of suspension is not sustainable. 4. Heard the arguments and perused the records carefully. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court was justified in denying back wages. 6. The facts are sufficiently set out and do not call for repetition. The only issue concerns the denial of back wages. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016 The Labour Court, after an elaborate consideration of the material on record, declined to award back wages on the ground that the petitioner had not actually rendered any service during the relevant period. In my view, the denial of back wages is just and proper, and the reasoning assigned therefore is evident and well founded. It is well settled that the grant or refusal of back wages lies within the discretionary domain of the Court. Such exercise of discretion is not open to challenge in collateral proceedings. The scope of judicial review in this regard is limited. Interference is warranted only where the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of settled principles of law. In the present case, the discretion exercised by the Court is found to be just and proper, warranting no interference. The contention regarding non-receipt of the order revoking suspension cannot be accepted. The reason is straightforward: as a matter of common understanding, when an employee is placed under suspension, he is paid subsistence allowance, and upon revocation of such suspension, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016 employer ordinarily discontinues the payment of such allowance. In the present case, the suspension was revoked on 22.03.2010, and thereafter the Corporation stopped payment of suspension wages. Further, no steps were taken by the employee to challenge or seek clarification regarding the discontinuance of the allowance. In these circumstances, the contention of the workman cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected. The award of the Labour Court is just and proper. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of the dismissal the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84