Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Nwkrtc vs I M Kammar By Lrs on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
WP No. 65162 of 2011
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 65162 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
HUBLI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, HUBLI,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY ITS
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580 030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. I.M. KITTUR BY LRS,
YASHAVANT
CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER
NARAYANKAR
COURT ORDER DATED 25/02/2012
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGHCOURT
OF KARNATAKA
1A. SMT. HAZRATABI W/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR,
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: MASTANSOFA, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI - 580 024.
1B. SMT. FATIMA W/O. BASHASAB KAGADAGAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: HUDCO ADESHANAGAR, GADAG.
1C. SMT. SHAINAJBEGUM W/O. JAVED MANGALORE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
WP No. 65162 of 2011
HC-KAR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O: HORAKERI ONI, OLD HUBLI,
HUBLI - 580 024.
1D. SMT. KHATEEJABI S/O. HAZARATALI KITTUR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
1E. MD. HANIF S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER,
1F. IMAMHUSSAIN S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PVT., SERVICE,
1G. NAZEERAHMAD S/O. IMAMJAFAR KITTUR,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: PETTY BUSINESS,
RESPONDENT NOS.1D TO 1G ARE
R/O: MASTANSOFA, OLD HUBLI, HUBLI- 580 024.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A & G);
R1B, R1D, R1E, R1F ARE SERVED;
R1C-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED
23/11/2009 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN
APPLICATION NO.68/2002 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS
ANNEXURE-B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
WP No. 65162 of 2011
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the Corporation
calling in question the award dated 23.11.2009 passed in
application No.68/2002 by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubbali1.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the
present writ petition are that the respondent workman was
an employee of the Corporation as an artisan. In the year
1987, the workman was allegedly illegally terminated from
the services of the Corporation with effect from 17.02.1987.
Being aggrieved, the workman raised dispute before the
Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 10(4-A) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1987 in KID No.84/1988.
3. The Labour Court passed an award directing
reinstatement of the workman in the service with 50% back
wages, which was challenged by the Corporation in WP
Hereinafter for short 'Tribunal'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
No.36032/1997. This Court by its order dated 06.03.1998
dismissed the writ petition. While dismissing the writ
petition, taking note of the submission that the workman
attained the age of superannuation on 03.05.1995, ordered
that "denial of 50% back wages and payment of balance
50% back wages shall be restricted to the period from the
date of order of dismissal till the date of superannuation". It
was further ordered that "50% of back wages shall be paid
from the date of the order of dismissal till the date he
attained the age of superannuation in addition to terminal
benefits within 3 months".
4. The workman filed an application under Section
33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act in Application
No.68/2002 before the Labour Court contending that he was
entitled to receive monetary benefits of Rs.44,408/- from
the Corporation. It was the case of the workman that he
was entitled to receive encashment of 8 months of earned
leave and hence was entitled to receive Rs.44,408/-.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
5. The Corporation entered appearance before the
Labour Court and filed its statement of objections. During
the pendency of proceedings before the Labour Court, the
workman died and his legal representatives were brought
on record. One of the legal representatives was examined
as PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked as evidence.
The Corporation did not adduce any oral or documentary
evidence. The Labour Court by its order dated 23.11.2009
allowed the application and directed the Corporation to pay
a sum of Rs.44,408/- within one month, failing which, the
Corporation was required to pay the said amount with
interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the present
writ petition is filed.
6. Heard submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused
the records.
7. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that after the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
06.03.1998 passed in WP No.36032/1997, the Corporation
has paid the workman a sum of Rs. 28,982/- on
25.09.1998, Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.10.1998 and Rs. 20,988/-
on 01.06.1999, thereby paying a cumulative sum of
Rs.1,49,970-00. Hence, it is contended that no further
amounts are required to be paid to the legal representatives
of the deceased workman. It is further contended that since
the workman was not on actual duty, the question of paying
earned leave does not arise.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
contends that the Corporation not having adduced any oral
or documentary evidence, the Labour Court was justified in
passing the order directing payment of a sum of
Rs.44,408/- together with interest. In support of the said
contention, learned counsel for the respondent places
reliance on the judgment of Division bench of this Court in
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
the case of the Divisional Controller Vs. Narendra S/o
Mahantappa Minajagi2.
9. The submissions of both the learned counsel
have been considered and the material on record has been
perused.
10. It is pertinent to note here that apart from filing
statement of objections, the Corporation has not adduced
either oral or documentary evidence in the proceedings
before the Labour Court. The Labour Court while
considering the claim of the workman held as under :
"11. In this case the date of dismissal is 16.2.87. The
date of superannuation is 3.5.95. From the date of
dismissal till the date of superannuation it works out
more than 8 years. It is the case of the applicant
that at the time of superannuation, 8 months earned
leave were in his credit has to be accepted in view of
non-production of any evidence by the respondent.
The respondent is having document with him, but he
has not produced any documents. Under the
circumstances, the contention of the applicant that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
he has 8 months earned leave in his credit at the
time of superannuation has to be accepted. At the
rate of Rs. 5,551/- for 8 months, it works out to Rs.
44,408/-. The writ petition was disposed on 6.3.98.
The applicant filed this application in the year 2002.
There is delay in filing the application. So the
applicant is not entitled for interest claimed in the
application."
(emphasis supplied)
11. The Division bench of this Court while
considering a similar fact situation, wherein the quantum of
back wages was required to be adjudicated has held as
under:
"5. What has been payable by way of backwages to
the respondent employee even otherwise cannot be
faltered since the appellant management has not placed
on record any material to show that what is paid to a
similarly circumstanced employee is less than what is
directed to be paid to the respondent herein; true it is
this aspect of the matter has not been addressed by the
learned Single Judge; however that per se does not
justify a remand of the matter for consideration afresh;
the appellant management being the custodian of the
records of its employees would have produced the same
to show the contrary; no reasons are assigned for not
doing this exercise even at the appellate stage."
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11385
HC-KAR
12. Having regard to the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court as noticed above and in view of the fact
that the Corporation has not adduced any oral or
documentary evidence, this Court refuses to exercise its
extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction contained under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
13. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
HMB
