Karnataka High Court
Sri Mousin S/O Mohammed Jumnal vs The Management on 4 February, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
WP No. 103943 of 2024
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.103943 OF 2024 (L-ID)
BETWEEN:
SRI MOUSIN S/O. MOHAMMED JUMNAL,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O. KALYAN NAGAR, SINDAGI
DIST. BIJAPUR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI AHAMED ALI J RAHIMANSHA AND
ASR NAMAZI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT,
NWKRTC, HUBBALLI DIVISION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HUBBALLI DIVISION,
GIRIJA A HUBBALLI - 580 030.
BYAHATTI ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRASHANT S. HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
DHARWAD
BENCH OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, CALL FOR RECORDS OF
KID NO. 48/2016 FROM THE LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI AT
ANNEXURE - A. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LABOUR COURT
HUBBALLI PASSED IN KID NO. 48/2016 DATED 23/12/2017, IN THE
INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE AT ANNEXURE A.
CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT
MANAGEMENT NWKRTC DISMISSING THE PETITIONER FROM
SERVICE DATED 29/07/2016, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
WP No. 103943 of 2024
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 KID No. 48/2016 from the
Labour Court, Hubballi at Annexure - A.
ii) Set aside the Order of Labour Court Hubballi
passed in KID No. 48/2016 dated 23/12/2017, in
the interest of equity and justice at Annexure A.
iii) Consequently set aside the Order of Respondent
Management NWKRTC dismissing the Petitioner
from service dated 29/07/2016, in the interest of
justice.
iv) Any other Order/Directions which this Hon'ble Court
deems fit be granted, in the interest of justice.
2. It is contented that the petitioner was appointed as a
trainee conductor-cum-driver in the year 2014 and
on account of unauthorized absence, he was
removed from service by the Corporation
on 29.07.2016. The petitioner trainee, having raised
a dispute in KAD No.48/2017, the Labour Court
rejected the claim of the petitioner seeking to set
aside order of termination passed by the respondent
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
Corporation, on the ground that the workman was a
trainee driver-cum-conductor and as such could be
dismissed at any time. Challenging the same, the
petitioner is before this Court.
3. The submission of Sri.A. S. R. Namazi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, is that the Labour Court
has dismissed the claim petition filed by the
workman only on the ground that the workman is a
trainee driver-cum-conductor. He relies upon the
decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
24.04.2024 in 100878/2017 and connected matters
(Basanagouda Vs. The Divisional Controller) to
contend that there is no post of trainee driver-cum-
conductor and as such, the reliance placed by the
Labour Court on the decisions of the Division Bench
of this Court in W.A.No.2596/2005 (North West
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation,
Gulbarga Vs. Mahabaleshwar S/o. Tippanna
Gatted), W.A.No.100369/2014 (Santosh K.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
Menasinkai Vs. The Management of NEKRTC,
Bellary), and W.A.No.100383/2014
(Management of NEKRTC, Hospete Division Vs.
Raju S. Jaydi) is not proper. On this ground, he
submits that the above petition is required to be
allowed.
4. Sri. Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for the
respondent Corporation, submits that it is not only
on the ground of the workman being appointed as a
trainee driver-cum-conductor, but also on the ground
of unauthorized absence, that the petitioner
workman has been dismissed. The said
trainee cannot be considered to be a workman, and
until confirmation of appointment, such conductor-
cum-driver could not raise a dispute under
the Industrial Dispute Act. In this regard, he relies
upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court dated 19.02.2024 in W.A.No.100654/2017
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
(The Management of NWKRTC Vs.
Gangaramsingh).
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondent and perused the papers.
6. In view of the Judgement dated 25.04.2024 in
W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters
(Basanagouda Vs. The Divisional Controller),
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 not make that person a
trainee Driver-cum-Conductor, the same would be
applicable to the present case also.
7. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court could
not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground
that the workman was a trainee driver-cum-
conductor alone.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2196
8. In the present case, there are serious allegations
made as regards the unauthorized absence of the
workman, which aspect has not been considered by
the Labour Court.
9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is partly allowed.
ii. Order dated 23/12/2017 passed in KID
No.48/2016 by the Labour Court, Hubballi, is set
aside.
iii. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court,
Hubballi, for fresh consideration in terms of the
judgment dated 25.04.2024 in
W.P.No.100878/2017 and connected matters.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
gab
CT-ASC
