IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO.10913 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC

MYSURU URBAN DIVISION,

BANNIMANTAPPA, MYSURU - 570 015. NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

CENTRAL OFFICES, SHANTHINAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 027.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. R. MANOHAR S/O LATE RAJU,

Digitally

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

signed by C

RESIDING AT NO.9/4, REDDY COLONY,

HONNUR

SAB VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, T.NARASIPURA TOWN,

Location: MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124.

HIGH COURT

…RESPONDENT

OF

KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MYSURU, IN APPLICATION NO.7/2017

PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated

05.04.2019 in Application No.7/2017. This application is filed under Section 33(c)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'I.D. Act').

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent-employee had attained the age of superannuation. On attaining the age of superannuation, Rs.3,11,788/- payable to the respondent- employee was withheld on the premise that penalty was imposed on the employee on earlier occasion and due to inadvertence, the amount is paid. Despite the penalty being imposed, the respondent-employee filed the application under Section 33(c)(2) of the I.D. Act on the premise that amount could not have been withheld by the Corporation.

4. The said application is allowed and petitioner-

Corporation was directed to pay Rs.3,11,788/- to the respondent-employee along with 9% interest, in case amount is not paid within one month.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amount was wrongly paid to the respondent despite the fact that respondent has suffered a penalty and the amount could not have been paid and that is withheld after attaining superannuation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that in view of the law laid down in the case of State Of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)¹ reported in, the amount paid to the employee due to inadvertence cannot be reclaimed in case the employee falls under the Group 'C' and 'D'. It is not in dispute that the respondent was working as 'C' Group employee. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that it is not an amount which is due to the employee, it was wrongly paid to the employee, as such the Tribunal could not have

2015 (4) SCC 334 awarded interest at the rate of 9% in case of amount not being paid within one month.

8. It is noticed that the operation of the award is stayed by this Court.

9. Under these circumstances, the Court would modify the direction to pay the interest and liability to pay interest would accrue in case the amount is not paid within 45 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. The interest payable shall be 6% per annum instead of 9%. 10. Writ petition is allowed-in-part Sd/-

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46