IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 37045 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANGALORE DIVISION, MANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

NAGARAJU, S/O. BHEEMANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. HIREYARADIHAL, AMABIHAL POST, LINGASUGUR TALUK, Digitally RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584122.

signed by …RESPONDENT PRAMILA G V (BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH COUR T THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO KARNATAKA QUASH THE AWARD DTD 30.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINAN KANNADA, MANGALORE IN I.D.A.NO.12/2016 [ANNEXURE-B] IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION TO PAY 50% OF THE BACKWAGES.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21^ST JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

CAV ORDER

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

2. This petition is filed assailing the Award dated

30.10.2017 in I.D.A. No.12/2016 on the file of Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court has allowed the application under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947') in part. The penalty of dismissal dated 26.07.2016 imposed on respondent/workman is set aside. The respondent/workman is directed to be reinstated to his original post with 50%

backwages and consequential benefits.

3. The respondent faced the domestic enquiry on the charges of disrupting the bus services on 11.10.2014 when he was discharging his duties at K.R.Nagar depot at Mysuru Rural Division. The admitted fact is that on 11.10.2014, driver of the petitioner–Corporation namely H.K.Suresh committed suicide in the bus. The petitioner alleged that the respondent who was also on duty on that day along with other employees protested and, because of which the schedule of 56 buses from the said depot was disrupted. In this backdrop the disciplinary enquiry was held and respondent was removed from service. In the dispute raised before the Labour Court, the claim made by the respondent/workman is accepted in part as noted above.

4. In this backdrop, the employer is before this Court assailing the award.

5. The last sentence in the synopsis to the petition reads as under:

"Hence this petition in so far as it relates to the direction to pay 50% of the backwages".

6. The relevant portion of the prayer in the petition reads as under:

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in I.D.A. No.12/2016 (Annexure-B) insofar as it relates to the direction to pay 50% of the backwages."

7. The Court is of the view that the Award directing re-

instatement has attained finality. The petition by the employer is confined to the award directing 50% of the backwages. 8. In ground No. 8, the first sentence reads as under:

"The Labour Court held that the charge is proved."

9. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the finding of the Labour Court in the Award at paragraph number

7.1.2 which reads as under:

"7.1.2 Having regard to the materials on record, this Court holds that even if there are some mistakes, it cannot be termed as an act of misconduct. No doubt, misconduct is preceded by mistakes, but all mistakes never leads to misconduct."

10. Thus, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the charges are not proved.

11. It is noticed from the award that the Labour Court has set-aside the penalty on the ground that other employees facing similar charge of disruption of the bus schedule were let off with minor penalty. In this background, it is urge