Writ Petition No. 1089 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1089 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD BANGALORE BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. (BY SRI. H R RENUKA.,ADVOCATE) AND: S VEERANNA S/O SATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO. 100, 6TH CROSS KEMPEGOWDANAGARA MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISHWANEEDAM POST NEAR ST. ASH PUBLIC SCHOOL BENGALURU-560091. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S B MUKKANAPPA., ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD OF THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF 41/11 DATED 9.5.12 VDE ANNX-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, has called in question the award dated 09.05.2012 in Reference No.41/2011 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the Labour Court']. The Labour Court, by this impugned award, has allowed the reference by the State Government under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the 'ID Act'], setting aside the petitioner's order dated 01.10.2008 dismissing the respondent from service with a direction to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, all consequential benefits and full back - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 wages from the day of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 2. This Court on 08.01.2013 has stayed the execution of the Labour Court's impugned award directing the respondent's reinstatement, but on the condition that the respondent's reinstatement shall be subject to the outcome in the present proceedings. It is undisputed that the respondent is accordingly reinstated, and he is continued in service subject to the outcome. It is seen from the records that efforts are made to settle the dispute, but to no avail. The petitioner has been in service for a period of over 12 [twelve] years since his reinstatement. 3. The State Government’s reference for adjudication is whether the petitioner's decision vide the Order dated 01.10.2008 to dismiss the respondent from service is justified, and if not, the relief that the respondent would be entitled to. The Labour Court, on 18.01.2011, has framed additional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 issues for consideration, and these additional Issues are [a] whether the petitioner proves that the domestic enquiry against the respondent is fair and proper, and [b] whether the respondent proves that the dismissal order is non-est because it is without the approval as envisaged under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act. The Labour Court has answered the issue on the enquiry being fair
Legal Reasoning
in the affirmative and against the respondent by its order dated 03.01.2012. 4. The respondent, after this order on the fairness of the enquiry, has examined himself as a witness and marked two exhibits viz., Exs.W-1 and W- 2. The petitioner has not let in any oral evidence, but has proposed to rely upon the enquiry records, which are marked as Exs.M-1 to M-104 by consent. The Labour Court has answered the additional Issue No.2 against the petitioner observing that [a] the respondent admittedly is a member of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Staff and Workers Federation - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 from the day of his appointment [b] the State Government by its order dated 02.09.2005 has referred a dispute raised by the Federation in connection with the Charter of demands, [c] this Reference is pending in ID No.148/2005, [d] if this Reference is allowed, the respondent's interests would be affected and [e] admittedly the petitioner has not applied for approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act and therefore the order of dismissal dated 01.10.2008 is non-est. The Labour Court, in this premise, has opined that it need not enter upon the merits of the circumstances that would justify the petitioner's decision to dismiss the respondent from service. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, the learned counsel for the respondent, proposes to defend the Labour Court's award, but ultimately when this Court has put to Ms. Renuka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, on - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 examining the merit of the petitioner’s decision to dismiss the respondent for a final decision in the peculiarities of this case such as that [a] the dispute is pending over 16 years [including 12 years before this Court], [b] that the respondent has been reinstated about 12 years back and has continued in service, [c] this Court can re-appreciate the evidence in its plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the original decision is perverse or is without evidence or is for extraneous reasons1, and [d] even if the petitioner succeeds on the limited ground of alleged non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, there would be protraction by another few years, they submit in unison that this Court could consider, in the light of the evidence on record, whether the petitioner's decision to dismiss the respondent from service is justified.
Decision
ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in part, and the Labour Court's impugned award dated 09.05.2012 in Reference No.41/2011 by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru is modified holding that the respondent will not be entitled to back wages for the period between the date of dismissal and the date of reinstatement or for consequential benefits for this period. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:11423 WP No. 1089 of 2013 [B] It is clarified that the respondent shall be entitled to be paid current wages from the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits and continuity of service, from this date, for the purpose of retiral benefits. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE nv