Karnataka High Court
Mohisin S/O Abdul Hamid Bilagi vs Divisional Controller on 4 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
WP No. 146898 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO.146898 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
MOHISIN S/O. ABDUL HAMID BILAGI,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
AT POST: KALYANNAGAR,
NEAR LAXMAN DODDAMANI HOUSE,
TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA,
KALYANANAGAR - 586 128.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AHAMED ALI J. RAHIMANSHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
N W K R T C, DIVISIONAL OFFICES,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 021.
...RESPONDENT
GIRIJA A (BY SRI S.L.MATTI, ADVOCATE)
BYAHATTI
Location: HIGH
---
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
BENCH
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE
RECORDS OF ANNEXURE A. TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN
K.I.D.49/2017 DATED 11.11.2019 BY REJECTION OF CLAIM OF
PETITIONER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT ANNEXURE A AS WELL AS TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF REMOVAL PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE B DATED 2/5/2017 NO. VAKARASA: HUVI: NEMAKA:
GAIHA: 21(16)799 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
WP No. 146898 of 2020
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i) Call for records of Annexure-A.
ii) To set aside the award passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi in K.I.D.49/2017
dated 11.11.2019 by rejection of claim of petitioner
for reinstatement at Annexure-A as well as to set
aside the order of removal passed by the
respondent at Annexure-B dated 2/5/2017 no.
Vakarasa: huvi: nemaka: gaiha:21(16)799 in the
interest of justice.
iii) Any order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be
granted.
2. It is contented that the petitioner was appointed as a
trainee conductor-cum-driver on 09/12/2015. On
account of unauthorized absence, he was dismissed
from service by the Corporation on 02/05/2017. The
petitioner trainee, having raised a dispute in KAD
No.49/2017, the Labour Court rejected the claim of
the petitioner seeking to set aside order of
termination passed by the respondent Corporation,
on the ground that the workman was a trainee driver
cum conductor and as such could be dismissed at
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
any time. Challenging the same, the petitioner is
before this Court.
3. The submission Sri. S. L. Matti, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Corporation, is that the
respondent being a trainee, the petitioner
Corporation could dismiss the said trainee at any
time. The said trainee cannot be considered to be a
workman, and further, though until confirmation of
appointment, such conductor-cum-driver could not
raise a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act, in
this regard, relies upon the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 19.02.2024 in
W.A.No.100654/2017 (The Management of
NWKRTC Vs. Gangaramsingh).
4. Sri. Ahamed Ali J. Rahimansha, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner workman, would rely
upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 25.04.2024 in W.P.No.100878/2017 and
connected matters (Basanagouda Vs. The
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
Divisional Controller) and submits that the
judgment in W.A.No.100654/2017 was rendered on
the basis of the judgment in W.P.No.100556/2015,
which, in turn was rendered on the basis of the
judgment in W.A.No.100383/2014. All three
judgments have been considered by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 25.04.2024
in W.A.No.100878/2017 and connected matters and
the Coordinate Bench has come to the conclusion
that, in all those judgments, the aspect of definition
of 'workman' had not been considered and it is on
the basis of the submissions made by the Road
Transport Corporation that the workman is a trainee,
orders were passed.
5. The Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.100878/2017 and
connected matters has passed a detailed judgment of
nearly 90 pages. Considering all these aspects and
negating the contentions of the Road Transport
Corporation that a trainee could be appointed and
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
has also categorically came to the conclusion that
the Cadre and Recruitment Rules of the Road
Transport Corporation do not provide for the
recruitment of trainee conductor-cum-drivers. Any
such recruitment would have to be on a permanent
basis only.
6. Thus once the respondent was appointed as a Driver-
cum-Conductor, he could not be said to be a trainee
Driver-cum-Conductor on that ground it is submitted
that the decision of the Labour Court is proper and
correct.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondent and perused the papers.
8. In view of the Judgement dated 25.04.2024 in
W.P.No.100878/2017, this aspect having been
considered in detail and the coordinate bench having
come to a categorical conclusion that there could be
no appointment of a trainee Driver-cum-Conductor
and training during the course of employment would
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2168
not make that person a trainee Driver-cum-
Conductor.
9. The same would be applicable to the present case
also. In that view of the matter, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The award passed by the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Hubballi in KID No.49/2017
dated 11.11.2019 at Annexure-A is set
aside.
iii. The matter is remitted to the Labour
Court, Hubballi, for fresh consideration in
terms of the judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court dated 25.04.2024 in
W.P.No.100878/2017, on merits.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
gab/CT-ASC
