Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc vs Rudragouda, S/O Mudigouda Patil on 25 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
WP No. 64888 of 2010
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 64888 OF 2010 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC,
BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, CENTRAL OFFICES,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI: 580 030.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RUDRAGOUDA S/O. MUDIGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC: EX. DRIVER,
R/O. JALIHAL (B.N.), POST: BANANAGUDDA,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO ISSUE
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD
DHARWAD
DATED:07/11/2008 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR IN REF.NO.3/2007 PRODUCED
HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY 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:13426
WP No. 64888 of 2010
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, by the Corporation
calling in question the award dated 06.03.2003 passed in
KID No.39/2001 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Bijapur1.
2. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the
present petition are that the respondent was employed with
the petitioner/Corporation as a driver since 1986. Alleging
that the respondent was absent from duty from 12.02.95 to
15.07.95 without authorization and without submitting any
leave application, articles of charge were issued against
him. Consequently, the respondent/workman was
terminated from service by order dated 27.10.95. Being
aggrieved, the workman initiated proceedings under Section
10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19472, which was
dismissed vide award dated 06.03.2003. Thereafter, the
Hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'
Hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
workman approached the Government seeking initiation of
conciliation proceedings, which was refused by order dated
17.05.2005. The said refusal was challenged by the
workman in W.P.No.24390/2005. This Court vide order
dated 20.01.2006, allowed the writ petition, quashed the
order dated 17.05.205 passed by the State Government,
and remanded the matter to the State Government to
reconsider the workman's request in accordance with law.
Consequent to the same, the State Government made a
reference under Section 10(1)(C)(D) of the I.D. Act, in
Reference No.3/2007, wherein the workman filed a claim
petition, and the Corporation entered appearance in the
said proceeding. The Labour Court vide order dated
07.11.2008, partly allowed the claim petition and passed
the following:
ORDER
"The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed
partly.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
The order of removal dated 27.10.1995 is set
aside.
The respondent is directed to reinstate the
services of petitioner on production of valid D.L. with
continuity of service from the date of reinstatement
and consequential benefits.
The prayer regarding back wages is rejected.
The period from 27.10.1995 till today shall be
treated as leave without pay."
3. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed
by the Corporation.
4. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that there is an enormous
unexplained delay on the part of the workman in seeking
reference, and that the award of the Labour Court setting
aside the termination is erroneous and liable to be
interfered with. It is further contended that the workman
was a habitual absentee.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the workman
justified the award passed by the Labour Court and seeks
for dismissal of the present writ petition.
6. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused
the material available on record. The only point that arises
for consideration in the present petition is, "Whether the
award dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Labour Court is
liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ
petition?"
7. The relevant factual matrix is undisputed
inasmuch as the workman was dismissed from service on
27.10.1995. It is further undisputed that the proceedings
initiated by the workman, including the filing of KID
No.39/2001, making a representation to the Government,
and requesting conciliation proceeding, which was refused
by order 17.05.2005 as well as the filing of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
W.P.No.24390/2005, culminating in the order dated
20.01.2006, are all matters of record and are undisputed.
8. Consequent to the disposal of
W.P.No.24390/2005, and pursuant to the reference made
by the Government under Section 10(1)(C)(D) of the I.D.
Act, the workman filed a claim petition and the Corporation
filed its objection. The Labour Court thereafter framed the
following issues:
1. "Whether the D.E held against the claimant is fair
and proper?
2. Whether the respondent is justified in dismissing
the claimant from the service by an order dated:
27.10.1995?
3. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled to?"
9. The Labour Court, while considering the points
for reference as well as the issues framed, held that the
domestic enquiry was not fair and proper, as the enquiry
papers were not produced by the Corporation.
Subsequently, while considering the aspect of delay, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
Labour Court took note of the observations made by this
Court in its order dated 20.01.2006 passed in
W.P.No.24309/2005, and upon considering the other
material on record, recorded a finding that the dispute is
still subsisting and that the delay is not fatal to the case of
the petitioner. The said findings recorded are as under:
"14. Point No.5 & 6 and issue No.2 & 3:
Both parties admitted that, petitioner was absent
from duties from 12.2.1995 to 15.7.1995,
petitioner contended that, he was suffering from
high fever, he fell ill, his wife was also sick, she
succumbed to the same, there are nobody to look
after his family. His leave application was not
considered by the respondent. Whereas,
respondent contended that, petitioner had not filed
any leave application, nor got permission from the
competent authority, the petitioner violated the
leave rules 1964 this is nothing but misconduct.
Whereas, MW-1/Mahiboob Basha filed his affidavit
later on he has not turned up this witness was not
subjected to cross-examination. Respondent
examined MW-2/Palaxi who deposed in the
affidavit regarding reiterating the objection
averments, this witness was cross-examined at
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
length. The petitioner filed his affidavit in lieu of
his examination-in-chief as WW-1 he reiterated the
petition averments in the affidavit and contended
that, he filed leave application as he was suffering
from high fever. Ex.W-9 is a latter submitted by,
the petitioner to the Labour Commissioner, Ex. W-
5 to 8 are postal acknowledgements having issued
the letters to Labour Commissioner. Ex.M-4 is copy
of the letter issued by respondent calling upon
petitioner to come and join duties within 48 hours
dated 17.7.1995. Ex.M-5 is copy of the charge
sheet, Ex.M-6 is copy of the order having
dismissed the petitioner from service, Ex.M-7 is
copy of report submitted by Depot Manager,
Badami, Ex.M-8 is copy of postal acknowledgment
and Ex.M-9 is order sheet of proceedings. Further
in the order of KID.39/01 marked at Ex.M-1 it is
observed by this court that, is clear that there is
unexplained inordinate delay of more than 5 and
1/2 years. Even though respondent failed to prove
the charges leveled against the claimant in view of
unexplained inordinate delay the court proceeded
to pass the order, so as per the discussions,
version of petitioner and respondent in previous
case itself respondent failed to prove the charges
leveled against the petitioner, and in the present
case on hand also these charges were not proved,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
original records regarding enquiry and medical
certificate etc, are not produced by both the
parties.
..............
As per this authority removal from service for
alleged misconduct and removal is penal and
stigmatic is not sustainable. Whereas, in the
opinion of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the
removal of employee from the service on the
ground of absenteeism is disproportionate,
shocking and excessive. Hence for the above
reasons and discussions, I am of the opinion that,
petitioner is entitled for reinstatement of service.
Further petitioner was removed from service in the
year 1995, he filed KID in the year 2001 parties
litigated before the concillation officer, Govt. of
Karnataka as well as before Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka now we are in the year 2009 there is
gap of 14 years during these litigations, if back
wages are awarded certainly respondent will be
put to heavy loss and inconvenience and petitioner
is not entitled for back wages on the principle of no
work no wages, he is not entitled for continuity of
service of this 14 years. Hence I am of the opinion
that, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement of
service with continuity of service from the date of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
reinstatement subject to production of valid D.L.
Hence I answer the Point No.5 and Issue No.2 in
the Negative;"
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is clear and forthcoming from the
aforementioned that the Labour Court has noticed the
workman's contention that he was absent from duty from
12.02.95 to 15.7.95, since he was suffering from high fever,
and his wife was also ill and subsequently passed away,
leaving no one to take care for his family. It was further
specifically contended by the workman that his leave
application was not considered. It was the contention put
forth by the Corporation that the workman had not
submitted any leave application. The Labour Court took
note of Ex.M9, a letter submitted by the workman to the
Labour Commissioner, and held that that the Corporation
has failed to prove the charges leveled against the
workman. However, in view of the inordinate delay, the
Labour Court, while setting aside the removal order dated
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
27.10.1995, directed reinstatement of the workman with
continuity of service, but denied back wages. The Labour
Court also directed that the period from 27.10.1995 till the
date of the award be treated as leave without pay.
11. It is clear and forthcoming from the
aforementioned that the charge against the workman is that
he was absent from the duty between 12.02.95 to
15.07.95, i.e., for a period of 5 months. In his testimony
before the Labour Court the workman set out the reasons
for his absence, inter alia, that he was unwell, his wife was
also sick, and she eventually died. He has further stated
that there was nobody to look after his family during that
period. A communication addressed by the workman to the
Labour Commissioner in this regard was also produced and
marked as Ex.M9.
12. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that the
enquiry was not fair and proper, since no records of the
enquiry was furnished by the Corporation in the proceedings
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after
appreciation of material on record has categorically held
that the Corporation has failed to prove the charges.
Although it is the contention of the Corporation that the
workman was a habitual absentee, no records have been
produced by the Corporation with regard in prior charges if
any, that have been alleged against the workman.
13. Although it is the vehement contentions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner/Corporation that there
was inordinate delay on the part of the workman in
challenging the dismissal, the various proceedings initiated
by the workman have already been noticed hereinabove.
Furthermore, the Labour Court has recorded a finding that
the dispute raised by the workman is not a stale claim.
14. In this context, reliance is placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of North Eastern Karnataka R.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
T. Corpn Vs. Ashappa and Another3. However the said
case is distinguishable on facts, as in that case the period of
absence was more than three years.
15. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry
Officer (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and others4, would
also not aid the case of the petitioner, since the factual
matrix in the said case is wholly different from the factual
matrix of the present case, inasmuch as the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, was considering the applicability of the
principle of proportionality.
16. It is clear and forthcoming from the
aforementioned that the period of absence by the workman,
who was employed as a driver, was approximately five
months, and that there was no prior charges leveled against
him. The claim of the workman has rightly been found to be
AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2164
AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1377
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
not stale. Therefore, the contention regarding delay, as
raised by the petitioner, is not liable to be accepted.
17. The Labour Court has rightly appreciated the
relevant factual matrix of the matter and has ordered
reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential
benefits, while rightly rejecting the claim for back wages
and directing that the period from 27.10.1995 till the date
of the award be treated as leave without pay. The order of
the Labour Court is just and proper and the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate any ground warranting interference
by this Court in the present writ petition.
18. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the
point framed for consideration is answered in the negative.
19. At this stage, learned counsel for the
respondent/workman submits that the workman has
already attained the age of superannuation. In view of the
same, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing
that the financial consequences that would be accruable to
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13426
HC-KAR
the respondent/workman shall be paid by the
petitioner/Corporation as expeditiously as possible in any
event not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
PMP
