Writ Petition No. 18844 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 18844 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S KSRTC MANGALORE DIVISION, BEJAI, MANGALORE-575004, NOW REPRESENTED BY: THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER: KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BANGALORE-560057. (BY MS RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND: BALAKRISHNA SHETTY, S/O LATE MANJAYYA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MANJUNATH NILAYA, NMADOOR MOODUBETTU, NADOR VILLAGE, VIA MANDARTHI, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT - 576101. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
proper and this Court in W.P.No.35029/2010 has recorded a finding that there has to be a fresh enquiry and fresh enquiry was conducted by the Labour Court and the case has to be decided only based of the evidence led before the Labour court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 11. It is noticed that the documents at Exs.M26 and M27 are the documents which are placed before the Labour Court. Those documents according to the petitioner bear the signature of the respondent - workman and it is further stated that those documents are not disputed by the respondent-workman. According to the petitioner, the documents at Ex.M26 reveals that the tickets are not issued despite the passengers paying the fare. 12. On going through the award passed by the Labour Court, it is noticed that there is no reference to the said documents produced by the petitioner and also other documents produced by the petitioner. Hence, the award has to be set-aside as this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India need not appreciate the evidence which lies in the domain of the Labour Court. 13. It is submitted that despite the interim order granted by this Court directing reinstatement, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR respondent did not report to duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that call notices were issued on 15.06.2016, 08.07.2016 and 28.07.2016. It appears that these are the developments that have taken place subsequent to reinstatement. 14. If the respondent has not really reported to duty despite the call notices referred to above, that may have a bearing on the final outcome on backwages in case the respondent is ordered to be reinstated. Hence, taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the case, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court permits the parties to lead evidence on the contention that the respondent did not report to duty despite directing reinstatement. In case the respondent were to dispute the allegation that he did not report to duty pursuant to interim direction issued by this Court, the Labour Court shall also give a finding as to whether the respondent failed to report to duty despite interim order for reinstatement. 15. Hence the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR
Arguments
(BY SRI S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, D.K. MANGALORE PERTAINING TO THE AWARD DATED 29.08.2015 PASSED IN I.D.A.11/2004 AT ANNEX-J AND ETC. Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER This Writ Petition is filed by Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation-the employer. The petition is filed against the award dated 29.08.2015 in IDA No.11/2004 on the file of Labour Court at Mangalore. In terms of the award, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the petitioner - employer is set aside and there is a direction to reinstate the respondent - employee along with 25% backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking through the facts of the case would submit that the respondent- workman who was a conductor was on duty from Mangalore to Mumbai on 13.12.2002 did not issue tickets for 11 passengers out of 29 passengers in the bus and for 3 passengers though collected a fare of Rs.41/- from each passenger has issued a ticket for Rs.24/-. It is stated that the vehicle was intercepted and necessary procedure and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR formalities were complied and thereafter domestic enquiry was initiated and the workman was found guilty of charges and he was dismissed from services. 3. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court on earlier occasion had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.35029/2010. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed with an observation that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the matter was remitted to the Labour Court to hold fresh enquiry. 4. Pursuant to the order in the aforementioned Writ Petition, enquiry was held before the Labour Court and the Labour Court concluded that the charges are not proved and consequently set-aside the penalty of dismissal and ordered for reinstatement with 25% backwages. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that two important documents namely Exs.M.26 and M.27 which exclusively established the charges relating to non- issuance of ticket at lower denomination despite collecting - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR higher fare, are not considered by the Labour Court and based on the said aspect, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that charges No.1 and 2 are not established. 6. It is further submitted that 3rd charge relating to the past history of the misconduct of the workman is also held to be partly proved despite the fact that the petitioner has produced records to show that the workman was found guilty on two occasions earlier. Thus, it is urged that the award is passed without reference to the material evidence on record and same is to be set-aside. 7. In addition to that, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the workman despite interim order granted by this Court for reinstatement did not report to the duty. It is further stated that the petitioner had issued call notices on 15.06.2016, 08.07.2016 and 28.07.2016, calling upon the respondent-workman to report to duty and he has not reported to duty. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed affidavits to this effect and to those affidavits filed before this Court, the respondent- - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR workman has not filed counter affidavit denying the contentions raised by the petitioner relating to not attending to duty despite, the interim order. 8. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is not entitled to any monetary benefit pursuant to the interim order for reinstatement granted by this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand would submit that the Labour Court has taken into consideration all the materials on record and came to the conclusion that the charges are not proved. It is further submitted that the evidence recorded in the domestic enquiry cannot be looked into as the enquiry was not fair and
Decision
ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed in-part. (ii) The impugned award dated 29.08.2015 in IDA No.11/2004 on the file of Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Mangalore is set- aside. (iii) The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for reappreciating the evidence placed on record and to pass appropriate order. (iv) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (v) The question as to whether the respondent- workman declined to report to the duty as alleged by the petitioner has to be considered by the Labour Court by considering the materials to be placed on record. To that extent, parties are permitted to lead evidence. (vi) Parties shall appear before the Labour Court on 11.08.2025. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that he is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:25029 WP No. 18844 of 2016 HC-KAR not in touch with the respondent, the Labour Court shall issue notice to the respondent. (vii) Registry to send the records forthwith. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48