IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 18517 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BMTC NORTH DIVISION, YASHAWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU - 560022.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. S.N.LOKESHAPPA, Digitally signed S/O. NINGAPPA, by THEJAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KUMAR N R/AT SAVANTHANAHALLI, Location: H IGH COURT OF SANKIHALLI POST, KARNATAKA JAVAGAL HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT - 583125.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY H.B., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri. Hareesh Bhandary, T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person.

Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., counsel for the petitioner, has appeared in person.

The respondent is served and represented by counsel, Sri. Keshava Murthy. H.B. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing.

2. As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 19.11.2025; on that day, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. Hence, for the appearance of counsel for the respondent, the petition was ordered to be listed on the 26^th day of November, 2025, and it was also made clear that if no none appears on behalf of the respondent, the Court will proceed to pass orders on the merits of the case.

3. The petition is listed today. As already noted above, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, either personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.

4. The petition averments are as follows:

The respondent was working in the establishment of the corporation as a trainee, driver cum conductor. He remained unauthorizedly absent from 25.05.2011 to 23.12.2011, without applying for leave or without prior permission from the higher authorities. He caused inconvenience and hardship to the corporation. Based on the report submitted by the Depot Manager, articles of charge were issued. There was no explanation from the respondent. Having no option, the disciplinary authority proceeded to hold an inquiry and appointed an inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry notices were issued calling upon him to participate in the inquiry proceedings; the respondent participated in the inquiry proceedings and admitted charges, and further stated he has no evidence. The statement of the respondent was acknowledged, and the inquiry officer submitted a finding holding that the charge is proved. Based on the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued, and there was no reply from the respondent; taking note of the material evidence on record, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order on 18.01.2013 and removed the name of the respondent from the list of trainee driver cum conductor.

5. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labor Court, Bangalore, in Reference NO 16/2015. The Labor Court held that the enquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence. The Labor Court passed an award dated 04.12.2017 set aside the order of punishment. The corporation has assailed the award of the Labor Court in this writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of writ petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the writ papers with care.

7. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

8. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent c