Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B S Manjesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1329 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs B S Manjesh on 16 February, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                WP No. 37048 of 2018


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                      BEFORE
               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 37048 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)


              BETWEEN:

              KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
              TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
              MANGALORE DIVISION,
              MANGALORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
              REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
                                                   ...PETITIONER

              (BY SMT RENUKA H R.,ADVOCATE)

              AND:

              B S MANJESH,
              S/O. SHIVARAJU,
              AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
              R/O. BANDIHOLE VILLAGE AND POST,
              K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571 426.
                                                    ...RESPONDENT

Digitally     (BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
signed by
PRAMILA G V        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO Location: QUASH THE AWARD DTD 30.10.2017 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN OF I.D.A.NO.11/2016 [ANNEXURE-B] IN SO FAR AS IT KARNATAKA RELATES TO THE DIRECTION TO PAY 50% OF THE BACKWAGES.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21ST JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed assailing the Award dated

30.10.2017 in I.D.A. No.11/2016 on the file of Labour Court,

Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. In terms of the said Award, the

Labour Court has allowed the application under Section 10(4A)

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947') in part. The

penalty of dismissal dated 26.07.2016 imposed on

respondent/workman is set aside. The respondent/workman is

directed to be reinstated to his original post with 50%

backwages and consequential benefits.

3. The respondent faced the domestic enquiry on the

charges of disrupting the bus services on 11.10.2014 when he

was discharging his duties at K.R.Nagar depot at Mysuru Rural

Division. The admitted fact is that on 11.10.2014, driver of the

petitioner-Corporation namely H.K.Suresh committed suicide in

the bus. The petitioner alleged that the respondent who was

also on duty on that day along with other employees protested

and, because of which the schedule of 56 buses from the said

depot was disrupted. In this backdrop the disciplinary enquiry

was held and respondent was removed from service. In the

dispute raised before the Labour Court, the claim made by the

respondent/workman is accepted in part as noted above.

4. In this backdrop, the employer is before this Court

assailing the award.

5. The last sentence in the synopsis to the petition

reads as under:

"Hence this petition in so far as it relates to the direction

to pay 50% of the backwages".

6. The relevant portion of the prayer in the petition

reads as under:

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in I.D.A. No.11/2016 (Annexure-B) insofar as it relates to the direction to pay 50% of the backwages."

7. The Court is of the view that the Award directing re-

instatement has attained finality. The petition by the employer

is confined to the award directing 50% of the backwages.

8. In ground No. 9, the first sentence reads as under:

"The Labour Court held that the charge is proved."

9. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the

finding of the Labour Court in the Award at paragraph number

7.1.2 which reads as under:

"7.1.2 Having regard to the materials on record, this Court holds that even if there are some mistakes, it cannot be termed as an act of misconduct. No doubt, misconduct is preceded by mistakes, but all mistakes never leads to misconduct."

10. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court

has recorded a finding that the charges are not proved.

11. It is noticed from the award that the Labour Court

has set-aside the penalty on the ground that other employees

facing similar charge of disruption of the bus schedule were let

off with minor penalty. In this background, it is urged that the

Labour Court could not have awarded 50% backwages to the

workman because other employees who were allegedly

involved in the same incident have been awarded lesser penalty

or have been exonerated.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the disciplinary enquiry against each employee was a separate

enquiry and against some of the employees even the

disciplinary authority was different as some of the employees

were transferred post the incident.

13. For this reason, it is urged that the Labour Court

could not have adopted the principle of parity.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge

that the evidence is led to establish the charges and the

enquiry officer has recorded a finding that charges are proved

and the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the penalty of

dismissal. Labour Court after having recorded a finding that

the petitioner is guilty of mistakes proceeded to impose lesser

penalty on the premise that every mistake is not a misconduct.

It is urged that the Labour Court could not have directed 50%

backwages in a situation where the Court has found that the

employee has committed mistake.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman would

defend the impugned award. It is submitted that, the impugned

award directed reinstatement of the respondent by setting

aside the dismissal order dated 26.07.2016 and directed

payment of 50% of the backwages with consequential benefits.

Though the workman is aggrieved by the part of the award

declining 50% backwages, the workman has accepted the

award as he is financially not in a position to challenge the

same.

16. It is also urged that the petitioner-Corporation has

only questioned the award directing 50% backwages and

consequential benefits and it cannot urge the contention to set

aside the award relating to reinstatement.

17. In support of the contention, learned counsel for

the respondent would urge that the Labour Court has assigned

sufficient reasons to pass the impugned award. Labour Court

has taken note of the fact that similarly placed employees who

were subjected to disciplinary enquiry based on the same

report relating to the alleged incident, have been awarded

lesser punishment and the respondent-workman cannot be

subjected to a higher penalty of dismissal from employment.

18. It is also urged on behalf of the respondent that the

alleged incident has not taken place and the alleged incident is

not established to record a finding that the respondent-

workman is responsible for alleged disruption of bus schedules

between 9:50 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. on 11.10.2014.

19. Learned counsel would also urge that on the date of

the death of the driver, around 50 people had gathered in the

bus stand. The employees and the public in and around the

place were shocked and dismayed on account of the death of

one of the drivers who allegedly committed suicide. The

employees of the petitioner-Corporation were emotionally

disturbed and the delay in operating the buses on account of

the death of one of the drivers, made the public to gather in

front of the bus stand, which resulted in disruption of the bus

schedule, as such, the respondent cannot be held responsible

for the disruption of the bus schedule.

20. The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the Bar and perused the records.

21. The admitted facts of the case are as under:

On 11.10.2014, a driver by name H.K. Suresh committed

suicide in the stationed bus inside the depot. It came to the

notice of another driver by name Shivaraj Cahannagi, around

6:30 a.m. As the news of the death spread, the employees,

including the drivers, gathered in the bus stand. The news also

reached the Union leaders, office bearers and the members of

the Union, and they also gathered at the place of incident. On

account of the death of the driver, which happened inside the

bus, the buses which were scheduled around that time did not

depart from the bus stand.

22. The incident of this nature is unusual. Since many

buses did not leave the depot on time because of the incident

referred to above, the passengers in the bus stand had to wait

and many people gathered around the depot gate. It is also

noticed from the records that, the driver who committed suicide

allegedly possessed suicide note in his pocket and it appears

that many people believed that the driver who committed

suicide had quoted the alleged harassment by the

Management. It appears that some of the workers insisted that

suicide note has to be read and the reasons for suicide be

disclosed.

23. In this unusual incident, it is alleged that the

respondent and other employees, namely Ravindra, Satish,

Sudarshan, Arun Kumar, Mahantesh Singady, B.S. Venkatesh

and Nagaraju and along with other technical staff held a strike

between 9:50 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. and disrupted the bus

schedule.

24. As already noticed, some of the employees against

whom the charge sheet is filed for the same offence were

transferred to different places and disciplinary enquiries were

held against those employees by the disciplinary authority in

the said depots. It is also noticed that based on the evidence

led before the said disciplinary authorities, findings were

recorded holding that those employees are also responsible for

the disruption in the bus schedule and some of the employees

were let off with minor punishment as the disciplinary authority

has taken a view that the proved misconduct does not warrant

penalty of dismissal.

25. However, in the instant case, the disciplinary

authority took a view that the misconduct alleged is proved and

the same warrants penalty of dismissal.

26. The Labour Court having taken note of the fact that

the other employees against whom the disciplinary action was

initiated were let off with minor punishment and the charge

against all of the employees being the same, respondent-

workman could not have been imposed with a penalty of

dismissal.

- 10 -

27. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation

would urge that the view taken by the disciplinary authority as

against other employees cannot be a view against the present

respondent on the premise that, inquiry itself was different and

evidence led in those inquiries were different. This contention

though appears attractive, one has to bear in mind that the

basis for holding the disciplinary inquiry against all the

employees by different disciplinary authorities (on account of

transfer of other employees) is the same. And the basic facts

alleged against the said employees are one and the same.

28. It is also noticed that the disciplinary authority who

conducted enquiry against Mahantesh Singady has given a

clean chit to Mahantesh Singady. Though, it is possible to urge

that the evidence that was placed before the disciplinary

authority against other employees were different from the

evidence placed against the present respondent-employee, the

petitioner-Corporation has not produced the evidence led

before the other employees.

29. It is also relevant to notice that the unusual event

of suicide in the bus in the depot probably might have

compelled the respondent-employee and others not to attend

to the work and to wait for the cause for the death before

- 11 -

proceeding on duty. In such a situation, the intention may not

be to disrupt the bus schedule or to cause inconvenience to

passengers or to cause loss or embarrassment to the employer.

30. In this backdrop, the Labour Court has concluded

that there is mistake on the part of the employee which may

not amount to misconduct. And accordingly, the Labour Court

has modified the penalty and awarded lesser penalty by taking

into consideration other employees who are guilty of charges in

the same incident are let off with minor penalty.

31. The Court is of the view that this is one of the

plausible views in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case.

32. In the present set of facts of the case, the Court is

of the view that, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be

said to be perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of

jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Labour

Court directed reinstatement on 30.10.2017, by denying 50%

backwages and awarding 50% backwages.

33. It is also noticed that the petitioner-Corporation

alleges revenue loss of Rs.1,67,897/- from the alleged incident.

The respondent was dismissed from the services with effect

- 12 -

from 26.07.2016. It is also noticed as against another

employee there is denial of backwages to the extent of 50%.

And in both the cases, the award denying 50% backwages has

attained finality. That being the position, the Court does not

find any reason to allow the petition for denying 50% of the

backwages as urged by the petitioner-Corporation.

34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP