- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 30380 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N.B.SHANKAR S/O LATE SRI BETTAIAH AGE: ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT A.K. COLONY, NUGGEHALLI TOWN NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 131 2. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 29 OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.R. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 [CP 19466/2025]; Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. IAA-2/CR-35/2013-14, DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED BY ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN) VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner. In exercise of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1947'), the Additional Labour Commissioner has permitted respondent No.1 to file a criminal case against the petitioner - Corporation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is untenable given on the fact that respondent No.1, despite sufficient call letters being issued to him, did not join the employment pursuant to the award for reinstatement. It is his submission that since he did not respond to the call letters issued by the petitioner - Corporation, his name was struck out from the muster roll, as such, the application under Section 29 of the Act, 1947 is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 would contend that the award for reinstatement of respondent No.1 has attained finality as the Division Bench of this Court in the W.A.No.6994/2012 c/w W.A.No.6995/2012 has confirmed the award for reinstatement passed by the Labour Court. It is his submission that despite respondent No.1 making several requests to allow him to join the employment, the petitioner - Corporation has declined to take him back to the employment. 5. Learned counsel would refer to the order dated 11.06.2013 marked at Annexure - B, wherein the petitioner has passed an order stating that the right of respondent No.1 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 join the employment is forfeited permanently and the name of respondent No.1 is deleted from the employees list. Thus, he would urge that the said order is passed during the pendency of the writ appeals and after the disposal of the writ appeals, which confirmed the order of reinstatement, the right of respondent No.1 to join the employment is very much recognized and respondent No.1 ought to have been taken into employment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would urge that the order dated 11.06.2013 is not questioned and that has attained finality, as such, respondent No.1 cannot seek any relief under Section 29 of the Act, 1947. It is submitted that even assuming that the order dated 11.06.2013 is illegal, said order has to be questioned in the manner known to law and as long as that order is not questioned and not set aside, the prosecution under Section 29 of the Act, 1947, is not maintainable. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 8. The order of termination passed against respondent No.1 is set aside by the Labour Court and respondent No.1 was ordered to be reinstated and the Labour Court has awarded 50% backwages. In the writ petition filed by the employer to set aside the award and in the writ petition filed by the employee seeking backwages, in terms of the common order, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set aside the award for 50% backwages and confirmed the award for reinstatement with continuity in service and consequential benefit. The writ appeals filed by respondent No.1 were disposed of confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the award in favour of respondent No.1 is in force. Merely because the petitioner - Corporation has passed an order on 11.06.2013 in derogation of the award and order passed by this Court and that too during the pendency of the writ appeals, it is not open for the petitioner - Corporation to contend that respondent No.1 has to question the order dated 11.06.2013. It is also relevant to notice that the aforesaid order is passed during the pendency of the writ appeals and thereafter, the writ appeals were disposed of. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2295 WP No. 30380 of 2025 10. The petitioner-Corporation did not bring to the notice of the Division Bench about the order passed on 11.06.2013. Under these circumstances, respondent No.1 is justified in contending that he is required to be reinstated and there is violation of the award and he is entitled to persecute the petitioner - Corporation under Section 29 of the Act, 1947. 11. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 12. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11