Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs N Narayanaswamy on 7 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:983
WP No. 10131 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.10131 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION,
KOLAR - 563 101, NOW REP. BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA
BANGALORE - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.B. ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
N. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OFFICE ASSISTANT MULABAGAL DEPOT,
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY,
Digitally KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION,
signed by C NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
HONNUR SAB BANGALORE - 560 054.
Location: ...RESPONDENT
HIGH COURT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE)
OF
KARNATAKA THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS IN THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.7/2012
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:983
WP No. 10131 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The employer - Corporation has filed this petition assailing the award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the Tribunal directed the petitioner-Corporation to give injury on duty (IOD) facility to the respondent from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Corporation would urge that on 28.10.2006, the respondent/ driver of the petitioner-Corporation sustained injury on duty and noticing the gravity of the injury, IOD facility was accorded to him with effect from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007. However, thereafter the respondent/driver without making any representation to extend the facility and without there being any medical records to support his claims, remained absent from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008 and claimed injury on duty -3- NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020 HC-KAR facility for the said period. The facility was denied on the premise that there is no representation and there is no medical records to support the said claim. Thus, the industrial dispute was raised, before the Tribunal the claim was contested. However, the Tribunal without there being any medical records to support the case of the respondent/driver passed the impugned award directing the petitioner-Corporation to accord IOD facility from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008. It is his submission that the impugned award is wholly untenable for want of evidence and the same is passed without there being any evidence to support the claim.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would justify the impugned award and submits that since the respondent/ driver has sustained grievous injury and has sustained dislocation and fracture of the spine, the Tribunal has taken a compassionate view and directed the IOD facility to the respondent. Thus, he would urge that the petition be dismissed.
5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. The Court has noticed that the Tribunal has made an observation that the petitioner has not produced the medical records to substantiate his claim relating to IOD facility from 30.06.2007 to 03.11.2008. The medical records which were made available before the Tribunal would indicate that the respondent/driver has taken treatment from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007. Beyond 30.06.2007, no medical records were made available to support the claim of the respondent/driver who sought injury on duty facility.
7. The Tribunal assumed that the respondent/ driver was under treatment beyond 30.06.2007 and directed IOD facility to be accorded to the respondent without any evidence. Moreover, the claim that the petitioner has undergone treatment beyond 30.06.2007 is seriously disputed by the petitioner-Corporation.
8. Hence, the Court is of the view that impugned award passed by the Tribunal is without evidence and same calls for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
9. Hence, the following:
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) Impugned award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside.
Consequently, the reference stands
rejected.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
SMJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45