- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 28963 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. M. MUNISWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SON OF SRI. MUNINANJAIAH, R/A NO. 90, 5TH MAIN ROAD, MAYURA VARMA ROAD,8TH PHASE, J.P.NAGAR, KRISHNANAGAR, KOTHANUR BENGALURU - 560 076. SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED …PETITIONER (BY SMT MANJULA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI NAIK V S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND THE REVIEWING AUTHORITY B.M.T.C., K.H.ROAD,BENGALURU - 560 027. 2. THE DIRECTOR AND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY B.M.T.C., K.H.ROAD,BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER AND THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-A. QUASH THE AWARD DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.255/2012, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC. 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 12.02.2019 in ID No. 255/2012 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. 2. The reference under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, 1947) in the aforementioned proceeding is answered in favour of the employer/Corporation and the punishment order dated 27.05.2009 imposed on the petitioner/workman is upheld. 3. Aggrieved by the said award, the workman is before this Court. 4. The parties to the proceedings are referred to as the workman and the employer. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 5. The workman was subjected to disciplinary inquiry on the premise that he was unauthorisedly absent for 20 days from 23.10.2005 onwards. The article of charges was issued on 13.12.2005. The workman contested the charges. The disciplinary authority found that the charges are proved and proposed the penalty of dismissal and disciplinary authority dismissed the workman. 6. The workman filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal on 11.01.2007. Then the workman approached the Revisional Authority and the said authority allowed the revision petition in part and directed the workman to report to duty on a condition that his conduct will be observed for 6 months and thereafter based on assessment further decision would be taken. 7. It appears that the workman though reported to duty did not attend to duty continuously for 6 months and in the said six months period, he remained unauthorisedly absent. Thereafter, again the observation period was extended by 6 months at the request of the petitioner. The authority revised the order and modified the penalty of dismissal and directed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 reinstatement by reducing the basic pay of the workman to minimum pay scale and disentitling monetary benefits for unauthorised absence period. The authority imposed the the said penalty as under: "The unauthorised absence from 23.10.2005 to 26.04.2006 was treated as period of absence and denied any monetary benefit for the said period and his pay scale was reduced to the minimum pay scale of the conductor with cumulative effect and it is further ordered that the workman is not entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement i.e. from 29.06.2006 to 24.04.2008 and from 24.09.2008 to 21.03.2009. And further direction was imposed holding that he is not entitled to any transfer for 1 year from the date of the order. It is noticed that continuity of service is granted. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the penalty imposed by the Revisional Authority is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved. The petitioner was unauthorisedly absent for only 20 days on account of unavoidable circumstances, as such, lighter punishment should have been imposed and would urge that the petition be allowed and the penalty imposed be reduced to minor punishment than what has been imposed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ Corporation would urge that the revisional authority has taken a lenient view and the charges are proved and though the proved misconduct would attract the penalty of dismissal and though the disciplinary authority has dismissed the petitioner and same is confirmed by the appellate authority, by taking into consideration the plea made by the workman, a sympathetic view is taken and penalty is reduced as noted above and the petitioner is reinstated. 10. It is further urged that, despite the reinstatement with 6 months observation period, the workman did not report to duty in that 6 months and again, he unauthorisedly remained absent. Still, the management has taken a lenient view and the observation period was extended by another 6 months and after considering the conduct of the workman, has modified the penalty of dismissal and imposed a lesser penalty and despite the management being competent under the Regulation to deny the continuity of service, has not denied the continuity of service and granted the continuity of service and other benefits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 11. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 12. It is to be noticed that the charge of unauthorised absence is duly established. The petitioner has not assailed the finding relating to the charges and he has only sought for revision of the penalty before the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority has modified the penalty of dismissal and reinstated the petitioner with a condition that his conduct will be observed for a period of 6 months and in that 6 months also the petitioner has remained unauthorisedly absent. 13. However, the Corporation has taken a lenient view and has extended the observation period by another 6 months and in that period of observation, his conduct is reviewed and the revision petition is allowed-in-part modifying the penalty and penalty of dismissal was set-aside and he was ordered to be reinstated. While reinstating the workman, the Corporation has applied the principle of 'no work no pay' policy and to that extent has denied the monetary benefit to the period in which the petitioner did not work. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10072 WP No. 28963 of 2019 14. In addition to that, the salary has been reduced to the minimum pay scale of the Conductor and it is submitted at the Bar that the pay scale has been reduced to the pay scale which was prevailing on the date of reinstatement and not as on the date of initial appointment of the workman. 15. And it is also noticed that the continuity of service to the workman is not denied. 16. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse so as to Interfere in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 17. It is submitted that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation. 18. The monetary benefits, if any, payable to the petitioner shall be paid within 90 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20