Karnataka High Court
Sri.Parasuram S/O.Rudrappa ... vs The Divisional Controller on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
WP No. 67784 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 67784 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
PARASURAM S/O. RUDRAPPA SHIGGAONKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
RESIDING AT POST: RATTIHALLI,
TALUK: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
YASHAVANT
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
NARAYANKAR WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR
Digitally signed by
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGHCOURT
LABOUR COURT, HUBLI IN REF. NO.22/2007 DATED 16.07.2010
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE; ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER
INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES AND CONTINUITY OF
SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, TO MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
WP No. 67784 of 2010
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/workman seeking
for the following reliefs:
(A) "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
or order or direction quashing the award passed by
the Labour Court, Hubli in Ref.No.22/2007 dated
16.07.210 vide Annexure-G to meet the ends of
justice;
(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ or order or
direction, directing the respondent to reinstate the
petitioner into service with full back wages and
continuity of service and all other consequential
benefits, to meet the ends of justice;
(C) Grant such other relief or reliefs as deems fit under
the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of
justice."
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present
petition are that the petitioner/workman was appointed as a
trainee driver by the respondent/Corporation on 04.04.1994.
Subsequently, the respondent/Corporation issued a show-cause
notice/charge sheet dated 14/20.06.2001 to the workman,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
wherein, it is alleged that the workman had submitted affidavits
dated 30.03.1994 and 08.07.1997 stating that he had neither
been convicted nor involved in any criminal cases. However, it was
later discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted against
him for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307,
504, and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code1. The
workman submitted a reply to the charges, stating that he had
been acquitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad, in S.C.No.108/94, by order dated 27.02.1996. He
contended that the police authorities had falsely implicated him
in the criminal case. However, without conducting any enquiry,
the Corporation removed the workman from service with effect
from 31.07.2001. The workman made a plea to the Corporation
through a communication dated 26.07.2003, but the same was
not favourably considered. Subsequently, the workman raised an
industrial dispute. Upon failure of the conciliation proceedings,
the matter was referred for adjudication and registered as
Reference No.22/2007. The workman filed his claim statement,
and the management submitted its response before the Labour
Court.
Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
3. The workman examined himself as PW.1. Exs.W1 to
Ex.W4 were marked in evidence. The management examined its
representative as MW.1 and Exs.M1 to Ex.M11 were marked in
evidence. The Labor Court, vide its award dated 16.07.2010,
rejected the reference. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition
is filed.
4. Heard the submissions of learned counsel
Sri. Ravi Hegde for the petitioner/workman and the learned
counsel Sri. Prashant S. Hosamani for the
respondent/Corporation.
5. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel
for the workman that no false statements were made in the
affidavits dated 30.03.1994 and 08.07.1997, and that the
removal of the workman from service by the management is
illegal and contrary to law. It is contended that, in the application
submitted by the workman to the respondent/Corporation, there
was no requirement to file any affidavit regarding the pendency
of a criminal case. It is submitted that the Corporation erred in
dismissing the workman, and the Labour Court also erred in
rejecting the reference initiated by the workman. It is further
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
contended that no enquiry was conducted, nor was any
opportunity of hearing given to the workman before his dismissal
from Service.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent/Corporation justifying the award passed by the
Labour Court contends that the workman having been appointed
as a trainee, there was no requirement to conduct any enquiry.
The workman having submitted a false affidavit, the Labour
Court has rightly appreciated the relevant aspect of the matter
and rejected the reference, which order ought not to be
interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition.
7. The submissions of the both the learned counsels have
been considered and the material on record including the records
of the Labour Court have been perused. The questions that arise
for consideration in the present petition are:
(i) Whether the finding of the Labour Court that
the workman had submitted false information at
the time of filing the application and at the time
of submitting the affidavits is just and proper?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
(ii) Whether the Labour Court was justified in
rejecting the reference made by the workman?
Regarding Question Nos.(i) and (ii):
8. The workman submitted an application dated 15.11.93
(Ex.M1) to the respondent/Corporation to be employed as a
driver. It is forthcoming from a perusal of the application (Ex.M1)
that there is no requirement for the workman to submit any
affidavit or to make any statement regarding his involvement in
criminal cases or convictions.
9. In the affidavit dated 30.03.1994 (Ex.M2), the
workman has deposed as under:
AFFIDAVIT
I, Parasuram S/o. Rudrappa Shiggaonkar, age: "major",
R/o. Hubli, Selected for the post of Driver in KSRTC and issued with
the offer of Appointment vide No. dated "hereby solemnly declare"
and state that I have not been convicted in any criminal offence by
any court of law or dismissed from service in this Corporation or any
State Government or Central Government or any local bodies or any
industrial, Commercial concerns or other State Transport Undertakings
for an offence or for any misconduct. Further, I declare that I had
never been removed or terminated for any offence or misconduct
while working in the Corporation for any offence or misconduct while
working in the Corporation for any disciplinary Proceedings and my
name has not been removed from badali list or terminated as
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
temporary/probationer, by way of discharge simplicitor at any point of
time.
I do hereby declare that the facts stated above are true and correct
and in case, it is found that the information furnished is false at a
letter date I am liable for termination/dismissal from service apart
from any criminal action being contemplated against me.
Place:Hubli S/d/-
Date:30/3/1994 DEPONENT
I KNOW THE DEPONENT
(K.T. AMBURE)
ADVOCATE.
(emphasis supplied)
10. In the affidavit dated 08.07.97 (Ex.M5), the relevant
portion of the same reads as under:
"3. That I am not involved in any criminal or
economic offence as an accused and have not been
convicted by any court of Law.
4. That I am neither suppressed any material facts
or previous employment nor dismisses/removed from
the services or the State Government or Central
Government, Local bodies and State of Central
Undertakings."
(emphasis supplied)
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
11. In the show-cause notice/charge sheet dated
14/20.06.2001 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), the workman
has been called upon to show cause regarding the following:
"¢£ÁAPÀ:-30-03-1994 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ C¦üqÉ«mïzÀ°è
£Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄUÀ¼À°è ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ
¥ÀæªÀiÁtPÀj¹gÀÄ«j. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 8-7-1997 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ
C¦üqÉ«mïzÀ°èAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà Qæ«Ä£À¯ï C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ¼À°è
¨sÁVAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²PÉëUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÆ
¥ÀæªÀiÁtPÀj¹gÀÄ«j.
¤ªÀÄä ¥ÀƪÀð£ÀqÉvÉAiÀÄÄ PÀÄjvÀÄ CgÀPÀëPÀ:C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã®£Á
ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è gÀnÖºÀ½î ¥ÉÆð¸À oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Áß
¸ÀASÉå:42:93PÀ®A:143, 147, 148, 323 307, 504 gÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ PÀ®A:149
L¦¹£Éà ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¤ÃªÀÅ DgÉÆæAiÀiÁV¢Ýj JAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è
w½¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16-10-93 gÀAzÀÄ WÀn¹zÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ
¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
12. A certified copy of the judgment dated 27.02.1996,
passed in Sessions Case No.108/1994 by the Court of Principal
Sessions Judge, Dharwad (Ex.W4), discloses that the petitioner
was arrayed as accused No.4 in the said proceedings and was
acquitted of the offences alleged against the accused persons
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with
Section 149 of the IPC.
13. It is forthcoming from the aforementioned that in the
affidavit dated 30.03.1994, the petitioner has merely stated that
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
he had not been convicted in any criminal case. The said
statement cannot be held to be false/incorrect, as there is no
material on record to show that, as on that date, the petitioner
had been convicted in any criminal case. In the affidavit dated
08.07.1997, the workman stated that he was not involved in any
criminal or economic offence as an accused and had not been
convicted by any court of law. The said statement also cannot be
considered false/incorrect, having regard to the judgment of
acquittal dated 27.09.1996. As on the date of the second
affidavit dated 08.07.1997, there were no criminal proceedings
shown to be pending against the petitioner, nor had he been
convicted by any Court of law. Hence, it is clear that the charges
alleged against the petitioner that he has submitted a false
affidavit is erroneous.
14. The Labour Court while appreciating the relevant
factual matrix of the matter held as follows:
"16. In this case the claimant submitted false information at
the time of filing the application and also at the time of submitting
the affidavits declaring that he was involved neither in criminal
proceedings nor convicted by any Court even though he was
involved in criminal proceedings of Rattihalli Police Station
Cr.No.42/93. There is no dispute regarding involvement of the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
claimant in criminal case registered by Rattihalli Police in
Cr.No.42/93."
15. It is clear and forthcoming from the award that the
Labour Court, after noticing and appreciating the relevant factual
matrix as well as the material on record, has recorded a finding
without adequately appreciating the documentary evidence that
the workman submitted false information at the time of filing the
application. The said finding of the Labour Court is erroneous,
contrary to law and liable to be interfered with.
16. It is clear from the aforementioned that the sole
ground, on which, the petitioner was removed from service
pursuant to the charge sheet/show-cause notice dated
14/20.06.2001 (Annexure-A), is erroneous and the same is liable
to be interfered with.
17. Having regard to the period consumed in pendency of
the present proceedings, and having regard to the fact that the
removal/termination of the workman is required to be interfered
with, it is just and proper that if the respondent/Corporation is
directed to reinstate the workman into service as expeditiously
as possible in any event not later than 30 days from the date of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
receipt of copy of this order, without back wages and with
continuity of service, the same would meet the ends of justice.
The back wages is not awarded having regard to the fact that the
workman is a driver, who, in normal circumstances, would have
easily found alternative employment. Hence, point No.(i) is
answered in the negative and point No.(ii) in the affirmative.
18. In view of the aforementioned, the following:
ORDER
(i) The above petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 16.07.2010 passed in
REF.No.22/2007 by the Presiding Officer Labour
Court, Hubli, is set aside.
(iii) The respondent is directed to reinstate the
petitioner into service forthwith, in any event, not
later than 30 days from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, with the continuity of service
and without back wages.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:11821
HC-KAR
(iv) The respondent shall assign appropriate work to
the petitioner subject to the petitioner meeting the
requisite requirements/criteria.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP
