Karnataka High Court
Sri Virupakshappa S/O Siddappa ... vs The Managing Director Nekrtc on 19 January, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Sachin Shankar Magadum
-1-
WA No. 100553 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100553 OF 2022 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA KOLAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. YARGAL, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYPURA 586129.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEKRTC, SARIGE SADANA,
MAIN ROAD, GULBURGA 585101
2. THE DIVISIONL CONTROLLER,
NEKRTC, KOPPAL DIVISION,
KOPPAL 583231.
BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE
REPRESENTED AT PRESENT
BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NEKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
SARIGE SADAN, GULBURGA 585101.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
WA No. 100553 of 2022
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING THIS HON BLE COURT TO PASS
AN ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.62519/2011 (L-
KSRTC) DATED 15/09/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS
THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The captioned appeal is filed by the respondent in Writ
Petition No.62519/2011 assailing the order of the learned
Single Judge allowing the writ petition and setting aside the
order of the Labour Court.
2. The appellant herein was selected as a conductor-
cum-trainee and having placed in the selected list of
candidates was sent to undergo training of one year. The
respondent-corporation having found that the appellant
herein had remained unauthorisedly absent for almost 365
days, after enquiry, removed him from service by order
dated 24.03.2005. This compelled the appellant herein to file
industrial dispute before the Labour Court and his claim
WA No. 100553 of 2022
petition was allowed in part setting aside the order of
dismissal and directed the respondent-Corporation to
reinstate the appellant herein into service without backwages
and continuity of service.
3. The respondent-Corporation, feeling aggrieved by
the order of the Labour Court, preferred writ petition in
W.P.No.62519/2011. The learned Single Judge by recording
his reasons has reversed the order of the Labour Court. The
reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are found to
be in two fold. Firstly, the learned Single Judge held that a
trainee driver-cum-conductor cannot be equated with a
regular driver-cum-conductor and does not fall within the
definition of Corporation Servant. Secondly, the Learned
Single Judge was of the view that the appellant herein is
found to be absent for a period of 365 days and therefore,
held that the respondent-Corporation was justified in
removing him from the service. On these set of reasoning,
the learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ
petition and the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour
Court is reversed.
WA No. 100553 of 2022
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant. We have also given our anxious consideration
to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
5. On perusal of the material, we find that the
appellant herein was selected and was placed in the selected
list of candidates, who was required to undergo training. The
material on record also shows that the appellant failed to
report for the training as prescribed under the Recruitment
Rules of the Respondent-Corporation. It is in this
background, the Respondent-Corporation proceeded to
remove him from the service. The learned Single Judge while
allowing the writ petition has placed reliance on the order
passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.100369/2014. The Division Bench of this Court dealing
with an identical case was of the view that the appellant
therein was required to undergo training as a conductor
when his name was included in the selected list and is not a
corporation servant and therefore not entitled for an order of
appointment and seek appointment to the vacant post of
conductor before successfully completing his training as
WA No. 100553 of 2022
required under 'C & R Regulations". In the light of the
principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this
Court, we do not find any infirmities in the order and reasons
assigned by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ
petition. The reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge
are found to be strictly inconsonance with the principles laid
down by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.100369/2014. Therefore, we are not inclined to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
6. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
