IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 30380 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRINIVAS B.S. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. N.B.SHANKAR S/O LATE SRI BETTAIAH AGE: ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT A.K. COLONY, NUGGEHALLI TOWN Digitally signed by NUGGEHALLI HOBLI, MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK, Location: HIGH HASSAN DISTRICT-573 131 COURT OF KARNATAKA

2. ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 29 OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 029.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.R. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 [CP 19466/2025];

SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. IAA-2/CR-35/2013-14, DATED 28.08.2025 PASSED BY ADDL. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 29 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 (2^ND RESPONDENT HEREIN) VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.

2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated

28.08.2025 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner. In exercise of Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1947'), the Additional Labour Commissioner has permitted respondent No.1 to file a criminal case against the petitioner - Corporation.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is untenable given on the fact that respondent No.1, despite sufficient call letters being issued to him, did not join the employment pursuant to the award for reinstatement. It is his submission that since he did not respond to the call letters issued by the petitioner - Corporation, his name was struck out from the muster roll, as such, the application under Section 29 of the Act, 1947 is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.1 would contend that the award for reinstatement of respondent No.1 has attained finality as the Division Bench of this Court in the W.A.No.6994/2012 c/w W.A.No.6995/2012 has confirmed the award for reinstatement passed by the Labour Court. It is his submission that despite respondent No.1 making several requests to allow him to join the employment, the petitioner -

Corporation has declined to take him back to the employment.

5. Learned counsel would refer to the order dated

11.06.2013 marked at Annexure - B, wherein the petitioner has passed an order stating that the right of respondent No.1 to join the employment is forfeited permanently and the name of respondent No.1 is deleted from the employees list. Thus, he would urge that the said order is passed during the pendency of the writ appeals and after the disposal of the writ appeals, which confirmed the order of reinstatement, the right of respondent No.1 to join the employment is very much recognized and respondent No.1 ought to have been taken into employment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by way of reply would urge that the order dated 11.06.2013 is not questioned and that has attained finality, as such, respondent No.1 cannot seek any relief under Section 29 of the Act, 1947. It is submitted that even assuming that the order dated 11.06.2013 is illegal, said order has to be questioned in the manner known to law and as long as that order is not questioned and not set