( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 12-8-2006 passed in.. D. No. 176/2002 on the file of Labour court, Mysore and Complaint No. 4/2006.

( 2 ) THE first respondent was working as a driver in the petitioners-Corporation. He was terminated from service by order dated 7-2-2002 and in this regard on 23-5-2002 as per annexure 'c', the respondent-workman had made a representation. Inter alia, stating that, the enquiry officer has pointed out that, the irregularity and illegality has been committed by the officers of the Corporation and the officers in order to hide the irregularity and illegality, they have rejected the enquiry officer's report and have discriminated the similarly placed employees in the matter imposing punishment and in this regard, the respondent called upon the Corporation to invoke the provision of Regulation 35 of the karnataka State Road Transport Corporation servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter called as "regulations" for short ). Thereafter, the first respondent raised a dispute u/s. 10 (4-A) of the. D. Act. Inter alia, questioning the order of dismissal dated 7-2-2002. The Labour Court issued the notice to the petitioners-Corporation, and as per the order sheet dated 28-10-2002, the notice of the Labour Court was served. On 25-10-2002, show cause notice was issued to the respondent by the Corporation to show cause, as to why an order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority should not be modified ? In response to the said show cause notice, the respondent-workman gave his explanation on 16-11-2002, inter alia, reiterating the irregulatity and illegality committed by the officers of the Corporation in the matter of imposing punishment in respect of 58 employees of the corporation and alleged that, the said order of punishment requires to be reviewed by the authorities in exercise of power under Regulation 35 of the Regulations.

( 3 ) ON 28-6-2003, the Corporation passed an order invoking Regulation 35 of the Regulations by setting aside the order of termination dated 7-2-2002 and imposing punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year under the Regulation 18 (A) (iii ). In pursuance of the said order, the Corporation directed the respondent to report to the duty from the date of receipt of the order. e. 14-7-2003 and on 22-7-2003, Corporation transfer the services of the respondent from Mysore to Bijapur and on 22-7-2003, the Corporation informed the respondent to report to the duty along with necessary documents mentioned therein. In the meanwhile, a memo was filed before the Labour Court by the Corporation. Inter alia, stating that the order of dismissal has been recalled. The respondent also filed an application dated 25-2-2002, inter alia, seeking permission of the Labour Court for his reinstatement. In pursuance of the order passed by the Corporation, the Labour Court directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent was reinstated. However, it is stated that he was transferred to Bijapur and he did not report.

( 4 ) IN view of the order dated 28-6-2003 setting aside the order of dismissal and imposing minor penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year, the respondent filed an application under Section 33-A of the. D. Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'act'), alleging that, the Corporation has violated the provisions of Section 33 (1) of the. D. Act by changing me service conditions of the workman. The said application was registered as complaint No. 4/2006. The Labour court on consideration of the application u/s. 33-A, held that the Corporation has altered the service conditions of the respondent by passing an order on 28-6-2003 and thereby set aside the order of dismissal dated 7-2-2002 and also the punishment of minor penalty imposed by the Corporation on 28-6-2003 and further held that the respondent is entitled

Click Here to Read the rest of this document