Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION No. 100878 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
C/W WRIT PETITION No. 102971 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No. 105459 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No. 111983 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No.107906 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No.108973 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No. 109310 OF 2016 (L-TER), WRIT PETITION No.107344 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No. 112165 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC), WRIT PETITION No.100757 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
IN W.P. No.100878/2017:
BETWEEN:
Digitally BASANAGOUDA, signed by KIRAN S/O SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, KUMAR R AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC:NOW NIL Location:
HIGH R/O KESARAKOPPA, TALUK RAMDURGA, COURT OF DISTRICT BELAGAVI.
KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANT.P.SAVADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF LABOUR COURT PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI, AT BELAGAVI IN KID No.65/2013 DATED:08.11.2016 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
IN W.P. No.102971/2014 BETWEEN:
MR.VITTHAL DASAR, S/O HANUMANTAPPA @ HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NARSAPUR, TALUK GADAG, DISTRICT GADAG.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C HAVERI DIVISION, HAVERI.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHIVAKUMAR.S.BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI IN KID No.127/2003 DATED 28.01.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER PASSED ON ISSE No.1/DOMESTIC ENQUIRY IN KID No.127/03 DATED 31.12.2013 VIDE ANEEXURE-C, ETC.
IN W.P. No.105459/2014:
BETWEEN:
SRI.SAVALAPPA, S/O DAGADU TARASE, AGE 32 YEARS, OCC:NIL R/O AT POST BYABERE, TALUK AND DISTRICT BIJAPUR.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC CHIKKODI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. P.R.BENTUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI DATED 31.12.2013 IN KID No.19/2013 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D, ETC.
IN W.P. No.111983/2014:
BETWEEN:
SRI.CHANDRAKANT, S/O HUSANAPPA MOOLIMANI, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O AT POST VIBOOTHIHALLI, TALUK SINDGI, DISTI BIJAPUR.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, CHIKKODI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKKODI.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH.N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI DATED 08.11.2013 IN KID No.20/2013 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-D, ETC.
IN W.P.No.107906/2016:
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER NWKTC CENTRAL OFFICE, HBBALLI.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O. HASANSAB MULLA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. MULLAGALLI, TQ.MUDDEBHIHAL, DISTRICT-VIJAYAPUR.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KALPANA T.M., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 23.09.2014 PASSED BY LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER IN ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN KID. NO.55/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
IN W.P.No.108973/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.MARUTI KALLAPPA ADNUR AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. HANUMAGIRI ONI, SAVADATTI, DISTRICT - BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. KALPANA T.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC DHARWAD DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 15.03.2016 PASSED BY LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI IN K.I.D. NO.170/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
IN W.P. No.109310/2016:
BETWEEN:
SRI.RAVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O BASAPPA PADESUR, RESIDENT OF KALLAPUR POST, SHIROL, NARGUND TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD, TRANSPOSRT CORPORATION, HUBBALLI DIVISION, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT (BY SMT.VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 27.11.2015, PASSED BY LABOUR COURT AT HUBBALLI IN KID.No.194/2014 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, ETC.
IN W.P.No.107344/2017:
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHANNAPPA, S/O GANGARAM BALAGANUR, AGE 36 YEARS, CC NIL R/O BASTIBANA MYAGERI ONI, LAXMESHWAR, TALUK SHIRAHATTI, DISTRICT GADAG.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIRIHARSH.A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, GADAG DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, GADAG DIVISION, GADAG.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAKASH.N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:27.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT HUBBALLI, IN KID No.102/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI UNDER SECTION 10 (4-A) OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, ETC.
IN W.P. No.112165/2017:
BETWEEN:
MARUTIGOUDA, S/O HANUMANTAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O PO:KADLIKOPPA, MULLUR, TALUK RAMADURGA, DISTIRCT BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C, GADAG DIVISION, DISTRICT GADAG.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD PASSED IN K.I.D.No.9197/2014 DATED:27.04.2017 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALSO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:26.11.2012 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D, ETC.
IN W.P.No.100757/2019:
BETWEEN:
SRI.PUNDAPPA S/O. AMOGHAPPA KARAGAR AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC.NIL, R/O. ARJUNAGI, B.K., TALUK INDI, DISTRICT VIJAYAPUR.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.S. HARAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HUBBALLI DIVISION, DISTRICT DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRASHANT S. HOMANI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 PASSED IN K.I.D. NO.68/2015 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT JUDGE & PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER QUASH THE ORDER NO.VAKARASA/HUVI/SHIKRASHA/403 (15)/7133 DATED 29.09.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-
B AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
1. This is the singular determinative question to be answered in this petition:
“ Whether a person who is selected as a ‘driver’ or as a ‘driver-cum- conductor’ by the respondent – North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation”) and is asked to undergo training before being appointed on probation, is a “workman” as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the ID Act”) and can invoke the provisions of the ID Act for adjudication of his rights ?”
2. To answer this question, the provisions of the ID Act, the Road Transport Corporations Act and the relevant Regulations framed by the KSRTC under said Act would have to be examined.
3. For ease of reference, this judgment has been indexed as tabulated hereunder:
| SL. | PARTICULARS | PAGE NOS. |
| I | Relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Analysis | 10-15 |
| II | Relevant provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 – Analysis | 16-17 |
| III | Relevant Regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 - Analysis | 17-61 |
| IV | Orders passed in the respective writ petitions | 61-89 |
4. The ID Act was enacted, in 1947, to make provisions for the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes. Section 2(g)1 of the Act defines an “employer” in relation to an industry carried on or by or under the authority of any department of the State Government.
1 2(g) “employer” means-
(i) in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of the Central Government or a State Government the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department;
(ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that Authority;
5. This section states that for a Central or State government industry, the ‘employer’ shall be the authority prescribed for that purpose and if no such authority is prescribed, the ‘employer’ is deemed to be the head of the department. The section also states that if the industry is one that is carried on by a local authority, the ‘employer’
shall be the chief executive officer of that local authority.
6. The term “industrial dispute” was defined to mean any dispute or difference between employers and employees, or between employers and workmen, or between workmen inter se, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any workman.
7. For the purpose of this case, an “industrial dispute” would thus mean any dispute between an employer and a workman connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of labour.
8. “Industry” has been defined to mean any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen. Undisputed is the fact that the Corporation is an “industry”
as defined under the Act.
9. A “workman” under the Act has been defined under Section 2(s)2 and it means any person, including an apprentice, who is employed in any industry to do any 2 2(s) “workman” means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person-
(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of
1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police se
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
