- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 15932 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE CHIEF SECURITY & VIGILANCE OFFICER/ APPOINTING AUTHORITY, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI B S SHRINIVAS, ADVOCATE SRI SANJEEV B L, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI B. K. NATESH, S/O KRISHNA BHOVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. KEREKODI, SANTHE MARURU POST-573 201, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S P RAMESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE III ADDL. LABOAUR COURT, BANGALORE PERTAINING TO REF.NO.28/2017, WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DATED 19.07.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC. Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 19.07.2018 in Reference No.28/2017 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the present petitioner - employer is set- aside and petitioner-Corporation is directed to reinstate the respondent-employee within 30 days from the date of the publication of the award with continuity of service and 30% backwages. Respondent-employee has accepted the award. 2. The petitioner- employer is before this Court on the premise that the charge of theft levelled against the respondent - employee was very much established and Ex.M5 the statement in writing by the respondent -workman is not considered by the Labour Court and other evidence placed by the petitioner - Corporation before the Enquiry Officer is also not taken in account. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 3. It is further submitted that criminal case lodged against the respondent - employee ended in acquittal and that cannot be the basis for setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal imposed against the respondent - employee. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - employee would justify the award and would contend that the allegation of theft against the respondent - employee is not established. The criminal case lodged against the respondent - employee ended in acquittal and the Labour Court has held that the benefit of order of acquittal should go to the respondent - employee and after analysing the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the charges are not established and passed the order of reinstatement. 5. Learned counsel would also submit that enquiry was not held to be fair and proper, as such, Labour Court is justified in passing the order for reinstatement. 6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 7. Though the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer said to be not fair and proper, the Labour Court thereafter afforded opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent to lead evidence relating to charges levelled against the respondent and respondent is also permitted to lead evidence in support of his defence and accordingly, evidence led before the Labour Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation to substantiate his contention has produced 23 documents and the respondent - workman has produced 5 documents and has examined himself as a witness. The documents produced by the respondent - workman are the judgment in CC No.23303/2011 and endorsement dated 17.08.2015 and order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 23.12.2015 and 23 pay slips and copy of the Conciliation Petition. 9. The Labour Court while passing the impugned award has mainly relied on the contention of the respondent - workman wherein it is urged that MW.3 and M.W.4-the witnesses examined on behalf of the Management have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 admitted that they have not seen the respondent - workman committing the theft of the batteries. 10. The Labour Court has also referred to the statement of MW.2, wherein it is admitted that no complaint is lodged against Mahadeva Singhi and Ramanjani despite the domestic enquiry was held against all the three. 11. The fact that the respondent-workman was officiating as security guard on the date when the incident took place, is not in dispute, it is relevant to notice that the petitioner - Corporation has produced Ex.M5-the statement in writing by the respondent - workman, wherein he has admitted that he has committed theft of 16 batteries. As can be seen from the impugned award, there is no reference to the said document at EX.M5. 12. Though the award would refer to Exs. M3 to M7 in one stroke, the implication of Ex.M5 is not considered. The Labour Court has observed that though MW.2 Smt. Bharathi has deposed that she recorded the statements of M.W.3 and M.W.4 as per Ex.M3 to M7. The Labour Court has noticed that it is the case of MWs.3 and 4 that they have given a statement - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 before the Security and Vigilance Officer-C.Puttaraju and they have not given statement before M.W.2 at any point of time. 13. It appears that the Labour Court is carried away by the above said statement of the respondent-workman. The documents at Exs.M3 to M7 would reveal that the signatures appearing in Exs.M3 to M7 are the signatures of Smt.Bharathi. 14. It can be held that the document at Ex.M5 is the document executed by the respondent before Smt.Bharathi who is examined as MW.2. In the cross-examination, respondent has admitted the signature of MW.5. However, he has disputed his handwriting on the said document. Though MW.2 has asserted that the document at Ex.M5 is in the handwriting of the respondent, workman/respondent has not admitted the handwriting, however, has admitted the signature. 15. This being the position, this Court is of the view that the Court has to rely upon Ex.M5 to hold that the charges against the respondent are proved. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 16. It is well-settled position of law that the degree of proof that is required in criminal case is different from the degree of proof that is required in domestic enquiry. The Labour Court having admitted the document at Ex.M5 could not have ignored the said document to hold that the charges are not proved solely relying upon the judgment of the criminal case, wherein the respondent is acquitted. 17. On going through Ex.M5, it is very much apparent that the respondent has admitted the charge of theft and his position as security officer on that day is not disputed. It is also established that 16 batteries are missing from 16 buses. Thus, there is difficulty to hold that charges are proved. The award passed by the Labour Court is contrary to the evidence on record. 18. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned award dated 19.07.2018 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.28/2017 is set-aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3242 WP No. 15932 of 2019 (iii) The penalty of dismissal imposed on the respondent - workman is restored. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12