Karnataka High Court
Shirajahamad S/O. Nazirahamad ... vs The Management Of on 18 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837
WP No. 102876 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.102876 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SHIRAJAHAMAD
S/O. NAZIRAHAMAD SAVANOOR,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. BHOOSAPPA CHOUK,
DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF
NWKRTC, HUBLI DIVISION,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HUBLI DIVISION, HUBLI.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
... RESPONDENT
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)
Date: 2025.11.22 11:19:59
+0530
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, HUBLI DATED
21/10/2013 IN KID NO.138/2012 IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE-H AND TO QUASH OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
LABOUR COURT, HUBLI DATED 24/10/2013 IN KID NO.138/2012
AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICE, WITH FULL BACK WAGES,
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837
WP No. 102876 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed assailing the award dated 24.10.2013 passed by the Labour Court, Hubballi in KID No.138 of 2012.
2. In terms of the impugned award, the petitioner's claim is rejected. Hence, the petitioner/workman is before this Court.
3. It is not in dispute that petitioner/workman was appointed as conductor under the respondent- Corporation in the year 1991. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner/workman on the premise that on 12.04.2011, when the petitioner was on duty in vehicle bearing No.F-1696, plying from Itikatti to Dharwad, the Inspectors intercepted the bus and found five passengers were travelling without tickets.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR
4. The respondent-management alleges that there were total 64 passengers in the bus and after noticing the fact that there are 5 passengers do not have ticket, fine was imposed on those 5 passengers and offence memo was issued to the petitioner; the receipts were issued to the passengers who were imposed fine and thereafter, the disciplinary inquiry was initiated after serving the notice.
5. The petitioner/workman disputed the allegations levelled against him.
6. The respondent found the petitioner guilty and dismissed him from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner rushed to the Industrial Dispute Redressal.
7. The petitioner contended that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The Labour Court framed an issue relating to the fairness of domestic enquiry and found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR Thus, the Labour Court permitted the parties to lead evidence to support their case.
8. Before the Labour Court, both the workman and the Corporation adduced evidence. After appreciation of evidence, the Court found that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and upheld the order of dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the aforementioned award.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that charges levelled against the petitioner are not established. It is his contention that the petitioner was in the process of issuing the tickets to the 5 passengers, who boarded the bus, just before the Inspector boarded the bus for inspection and before he could issue the tickets, the passengers were checked and the offence memo was issued alleging that the petitioner had failed to issue tickets to 5 passengers. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the inspection had not taken place at stage -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR No.6 and the false allegation is made stating that the inspection had taken place at stage No.6.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that admissions in the cross-examination of MW1 and MW2 have not been properly appreciated. It is his contention that, had it been properly appreciated, the Labour Court would have found that the petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct and order of dismissal is erroneous.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Corporation would submit that the interception took place when the bus was plying from Itigatti to Dharwad; and the Inspector checked the passengers travelling in the bus and it was found that 5 passengers were ticketless; and noticing this fact, the fine was imposed on the 5 passengers; the 5 passengers paid the fine and receipt was issued to them; the status report was generated on the spot and the documents are placed before the Labour Court to establish -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR the charges. The Labour Court after considering the materials on record has concluded that the charges are established. Thus, he would urge to dismiss the petition.
12. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
13. The Court has also perused the impugned award passed by the Labour Court.
14. The Labour Court has noticed the fact that the respondent-Corporation has produced 20 documents in support of its contention. Exhibit-M3 is the offence memo issued on the spot after the Inspectors inspected the bus and noticed that there are 5 passengers without ticket and Exhibit-M4 is the penalty receipt issued by the respondent- management to the passengers who are travelling without ticket.
15. It is urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the receipt said to have been issued to -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR the passengers, who were travelling without ticket, does not bear the full name and address of the passengers, as such, the said document is inadmissible to conclude that the petitioner has not issued tickets.
16. The Labour Court has addressed the said contention holding that if names of all the passengers are not mentioned in the receipt for having imposed the fine, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the passengers were not travelling without ticket. The Labour Court has assigned reasons as to why sometimes the names of all the passengers are not mentioned in the ticket.
17. It is observed by the Labour Court that sometimes the passengers who travelled without ticket, hesitate to furnish correct name and address.
18. This being the very plausible reason offered by the Labour Court, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve Exhibit-M4, the penalty receipt. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR
19. It is also relevant to notice that Exhibit-M6 are the un-punched tickets collected at the time of interception. The officers who have conducted the surprise check were also examined and it is also noticed by the Labour Court that in the cross- examination of the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent, the interception took place at stage No.8. It is not suggested in the cross-examination that the bus was checked at stage No.6, which is the contention raised at the time of final argument.
20. The Tribunal has also concluded that the contention of the respondent is the contention of the petitioner that he was in the process of issuing tickets to the five passengers when the interception took place, which was not established. The very contention that the petitioner-conductor was in the process of issuing the tickets to the passengers would lead to the inference that 5 passengers were found ticketless when the bus was intercepted.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR
21. Under these circumstances, the Labour Court has concluded that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner is established. The Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has to consider the decision making process rather than the decision. Unless, it is established that the decision is perverse and without any evidence, the decision cannot be set- aside merely because one more view is plausible.
22. In a proceeding of this nature, the proof of misconduct is to be decided on preponderance of probability on the touch stone of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
23. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct of not issuing tickets to 5 passengers.
24. Insofar as the contention relating to proportionality of punishment, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the petitioner should not have
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR been dismissed from employment, he should have been imposed a lesser penalty. This contention is also addressed by the Labour Court.
25. The Labour Court has noticed that the petitioner/ workman has admitted in the cross-examination that on 17 occasions earlier, he was found to have committed a misconduct of not issuing ticket to the passengers and on all those 17 occasions, the petitioner was let off with minor penalty.
26. Having noticed the fact that the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct on 17 occasions earlier, the Labour Court has held that the penalty of dismissal on the 18th misconduct, is not disproportionate.
27. This Court also does not find any reason to interfere with the said award, confirming the penalty of dismissal.
28. Hence, the following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:15837 WP No. 102876 of 2014 HC-KAR ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/-
CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 6