Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Nwkrtc vs Sri.Irappa S/O Shivappa Hurali on 29 January, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
WP No. 103436 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 103436 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC
BELGAUM DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, HUBBALLI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. IRAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA HURALI
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL,
GIRIJA A R/O. AT AND POST: HOSUR,
BYAHATTI TQ: SAUNDATTI, AND DIST: BELGAUM.
Digitally signed by GIRIJA A
BYAHATTI
...RESPONDENT
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.02.01 15:28:40
+0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE
AWARD MADE IN K.I.D. NO.36/2012 DATED 28.11.2013
(ANNEXURE 'A') PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBLI AT: HUBLI AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
WP No. 103436 of 2016
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The petitioner Road Transport Corporation, is before
this court seeking the following reliefs:
(i) A writ in the nature of CERTIORARI or any
other appropriate writ, direction or order
QUASHING the award made in K.I.D.
No.36/2012 dated 28.11.2013 (ANNEXURE
'A') passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional
Labour Court, Hubli At: Hubli.
(ii) Such other writ, direction or order that this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and expedient in
the circumstances of the case.
2. It is contented that the respondent was appointed as
a trainee conductor-cum-driver on 12/02/2007. On
account of unauthorized absence, he was dismissed
from service by the Corporation on 29/02/2012. The
respondent trainee, having raised a dispute in KAD
No.36/2012, the Labour Court set aside the dismissal
and directed the petitioner to reinstate the
respondent to his original post with continuity of
service, as also consequential benefits in notional
terms, but without back wages, within two months.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this
Court.
3. The submission Smt.P. R. Bentur, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, 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, she submits that
this aspect has not been considered is a proper
perspective and, 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. Ravi Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
(Basanagouda Vs. The 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
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
Corporation that a trainee could be appointed and
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. Though Labour Court did not have the benefit of the
order of the coordinate bench dated 25.04.2024
passed in W.P.No.100878/2017. The Labour Court
has considered the matter and come to a conclusion
that the workmen was discharging the duties as that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:1781
of any other workmen. There is no difference in the
work discharged by this workmen and any other
driver-cum-conductor and come to a conclusion that
he cannot be said to be a trainee. Be that as it may,
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
not make that person a trainee Driver-cum-
Conductor. The same would be applicable to the
present case also. I do not find any grounds in the
petition. Petition stands dismissed.
9. The time fixed by the Labour Court is extended by
period of one month from today, by which time, the
Road Transport Corporation would have to comply
with the order of the Labour Court.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
