IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 15932 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE CHIEF SECURITY &

VIGILANCE OFFICER/

APPOINTING AUTHORITY, BMTC CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

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

AND:

Dig itally signed by SRI B. K. NATESH, PRAMILA G V S/O KRISHNA BHOVI, Location: AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HIGH COURT R/O. KEREKODI, SANTHE MARURU POST-573 201, OF ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI S P RAMESHA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE III ADDL. LABOAUR COURT, BANGALORE PERTAINING TO REF.NO.28/2017, WHICH HAS CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DATED 19.07.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C 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

This petition is filed assailing the award dated 19.07.2018 in Reference No.28/2017 on the file of III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the penalty of dismissal imposed by the present petitioner - employer is set- aside and petitioner-Corporation is directed to reinstate the respondent-employee within 30 days from the date of the publication of the award with continuity of service and 30%

backwages. Respondent-employee has accepted the award.

2. The petitioner- employer is before this Court on the premise that the charge of theft levelled against the respondent - employee was very much established and Ex.M5 the statement in writing by the respondent -workman is not considered by the Labour Court and other evidence placed by the petitioner - Corporation before the Enquiry Officer is also not taken in account.

3. It is further submitted that criminal case lodged against the respondent - employee ended in acquittal and that cannot be the basis for setting aside the order of penalty of dismissal imposed against the respondent - employee.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -

employee would justify the award and would contend that the allegation of theft against the respondent - employee is not established. The criminal case lodged against the respondent - employee ended in acquittal and the Labour Court has held that the benefit of order of acquittal should go to the respondent - employee and after analysing the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the charges are not established and passed the order of reinstatement.

5. Learned counsel would also submit that enquiry was not held to be fair and proper, as such, Labour Court is justified in passing the order for reinstatement.

6. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.

7. Though the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer said to be not fair and proper, the Labour Court thereafter afforded opportunity to both the petitioner and respondent to lead evidence relating to charges levelled against the respondent and respondent is also permitted to lead evidence in support of his defence and accordingly, evidence led before the Labour Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

Corporation to substantiate his contention has produced 23 documents and the respondent - workman has produced 5 documents and has examined himself as a witness. The documents produced by the respondent - workman are the judgment in CC No.23303/2011 and endorsement dated 17.08.2015 and order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 23.12.2015 and 23 pay slips and copy of the Conciliation Petition.

9. The Labour Court while passing the impugned award has mainly relied on the contention of the respondent - workman wherein it is urged that MW.3 and M.