1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

WRIT PETITION NO.16985/2017 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISION CONTROLLER

BMTC, WEST DIVISION,

KENGERI T.T.M.C. BUILDING,

(BMTC BUS STAND BUILDING),

KENGERI, BENGALURU - 506 060

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS

CHIEF LAW OFFICER

BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,

K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 027

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. B. RAMU

S/O BETTAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

EX DRIVER, B.NO.14043,

DEPOT NO.16

BMTC, WEST DIVISION,

R/AT, NO.27, 4^TH CROSS

4^TH MAIN ROAD,

MARIYAMMA TEMPLE,

BYRASANDRA , JAYANAGARA

BENGALURU - 560 011

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD

DTD15.9.2016

PASSED

BY

THE

1^ST

ADDL.

LABOUR

COURT,

BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.41/2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B

GROUP

THROUGH

VIDEO

CONFERENCING/

PHYSICAL

HEARING

(OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner-Corporation has assailed

the award dated 15.09.2016 passed by the Ist Additional Labour

Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.41/2014 (Annexure-G).

2.

Learned

counsel

for

petitioner

submitted

that

respondent joined the Corporation as a Driver in the year 1997.

Petitioner-Corporation noticed certain defects in the Transfer

Certificate. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner pointed

out from Annexure-A and A1 that Transfer Certificate and

register maintained by the School authorities. Consequently,

Article of charges was issued on 19.10.2012. Enquiry was

concluded in imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on

15.07/10.2014. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal,

respondent raised an Industrial Dispute. An award was passed

in favour of respondent-workman. Feeling aggrieved by the

award, petitioner has presented this petition. Interim order was

granted in the present petition, thereafter, respondent was taken

back to duty on 24.04.2017 and he had attained the age of

superannuation and retired from service on 28.02.2019.

3

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Labour

Court has failed to appreciate the documents Ex.M.5 (Annexure-

A1) read with Ex.M.8 (Annexuer-A). There are defects in the

material information. The same has not been appreciated by the

Labour Court. Respondent-workman has not approached the

petitioner-Corporation with clean hand in seeking appointment as

a Driver. Therefore, present petition is to be allowed while

setting aside the award passed by Labour Court.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent resisted

the contentions of the petitioner and submitted that, respondent-

workman joined the service in the year 1997. He has been

dismissed from service on 15.07/10.2014. Pursuant to the order

of this Court, he was taken back to duty on 24.04.2017 and he is

retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. He

has

relied

upon

Apex

Court

decision

in

the

case

of

V.Ramachandrappa

V/s Divisional Controller, KSRTC

in

Civil

Appeal

No.128

of

2018

@

Special

Leave

Petition(C)No.26214/2015

arising

out

of

Writ

Appeal

No.6080/2013 decided on 05.12.2014. While treating dismissal

4

from service to that of compulsory retirement, the Apex Court

ordered for release of benefits within a period of three months.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

6.

Perusal of the records, it is evident that Labour Court

has failed to appreciate the documents Annexures-A1 and A

(Ex.P.M8 and M5 respectively). Though, matter should have

been remanded to Labour Court to decide afresh with reference

to material evidence like Ex.M5 and M8, however, it is not a case

for remand for the reason that respondent-workman was taken

back to duty on