THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC vs RAMLING S/O. MEERAJI SALUNKE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 75131 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC,
CHIKKODI DIVISION, CHIKODI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE,
HUBLI.



…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1. RAMLING S/O MEERAJI SALUNKE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. GANAPATI CHOWK,
INDI ROAD,
BIJAPUR, DIST: BIJAPUR,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS,

1A. SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O RAMALING SALUNKE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,

1B. NIRMAL W/O VIKRAM PAWAR,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,

1C. SUNIL S/O RAMALING SALUNKE,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,

1D. NISHA W/O PRAMOD CHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,

1E. NIKHIL S/O RAMALING SALUNKE,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC. NOT KNOWN,

ALL R/O NARENDRA GARAGE HOBLI,
TQ. DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANT P. SAVADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A-E);
SRI VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R1(B,C,E AND D))






BHARATHI
H M


Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.10.30 14:20:31
+0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE AWARD
DATED 20/06/2011 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT
HUBLI IN KID.NO.18/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND CONSEQUENTLY
BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE KID. NO.18/2011 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT HUBLI
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY 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 RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA


ORAL ORDER


This writ petition challenges the award of the Additional
Labour Court, Hubballi dated 26.06.2011 passed in KID
No.18/2011. In the said award, the Labour Court has set aside
the order terminating the respondent-workman from service. It
was further directed that the respondent-workman be
reinstated into service with consequential benefits and full
backwages. The Labour Court also directed that the benefits
under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities Protection of Right and Full Participation) Act,
1995 may also be extended to the respondent-workman.

2. Facts, in brief, culminating in the present writ
petition are that:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013



2.1 The respondent joined the services of the
petitioner-Corporation in the year 1978. He was working as a
Mechanic when the charge sheet was issued to him in 2008.

2.2 It is claimed that as of 2008, in a service of 30
years, the respondent had absented only on two occasions.

2.3 The respondent claimed that on 17.08.2007 while
attending to his duties as a Mechanic, he fell unconscious. His
wife admitted him to the hospital for treatment. Although he
regained consciousness, he had lost grip over his upper and
lower limbs and was also having severe backache. It is stated
that the respondent suffered from chronic hepatitis with
lumbago. He was treated for the ailments. He was bedridden
and he could not contact the management and convey his
inability to report to work.

2.4 The petitioner-Corporation issued a charge sheet
against the respondent-workman for unauthorised absence for
the period from 17.10.2007 to 01.07.2008. He stated that the
respondent replied to the charge sheet on 14.07.2008 through
the Department.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013



2.5 The management initiated an enquiry and
appointed an Enquiry Officer.

2.6 Respondent could not participate in the enquiry due
to paralysis stroke and he sought time by sending a letter by
RPAD.

2.7 However, the enquiry proceeded and the
management dismissed the respondent from service.

2.8 In view of the order of dismissal passed by the
management, workman preferred Reference KID No.18/2011
before the Labour Court.

2.9 Before the Labour Court, the petitioner-Corporation
was served with notice but did not file any objections to the
petition filed by the respondent-workman. The respondent-
workman examined one witness on his behalf and produced
documentary evidence marked as Ex.W-1 to Ex.W.10.

2.10 There was no evidence led on behalf of the
petitioner-Corporation.

2.11 The Labour Court passed the impugned award as
noted above and set aside the order with further directions.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013



3. I have heard Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Anant P. Savadi, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1(A to E).

4. It is necessary to note that after the award of the
Labour Court, the original respondent-workman passed away
and he is intestate represented by the petitioner.

5. On a careful perusal of the award of the Labour
Court and the material on record, it is clear that the
respondent-workman has suffered from serious health
problems including paralysis. When the petitioner-Corporation
initiated an enquiry against him, he conveyed his inability to
participate in the enquiry because of paralysis. He is stated to
have fallen unconscious while on work in the year 2007 and a
series of ailments is stated to have commenced at that point of
time.

6. The respondent-workman produced a number of
documents before the Labour Court to justify his absence from
work. These documents included medical certificates as to his
ailments. It is seen that he was suffering from paralysis.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013



7. Sri.Prashant Hosamani, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the medical certificates produced by
the respondent-workman are of the year 2009 and therefore,
they are of no avail to justify his absence for the period from
17.10.2007 up to 02.07.2008. However, his contention is
untenable because the assertion of the respondent-workman
that he fell unconscious on 17.10.2007 while at work and
thereafter, he suffered the series of ailments including paralysis
has not been denied by the petitioner-Corporation by filing any
affidavit or objections. The petitioner has also not led any
evidence before the Labour Court.

8. It is also noted that the respondent joined the
services of the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1978 and by
2008 when he had to stop his work because of his medical
condition, he had already put in 30 years of service. His
assertion that he had a clear track record and it is also not
denied by the petitioner-Corporation.

9. It is noted that the respondent-workman became
paralysed and he qualified as a person with disability under the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16515
WP No. 75131 of 2013


CNR: KAHC020000862013


Persons with Disabilities Act. The Labour Court has taken note
of this aspect and has issued suitable directions under the Act.

10. On an overall examination of the matter and in the
light of the material on record, it cannot be said that the award
of the Labour Court is erroneous.

11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is
meritless and it deserves to be dismissed. In light of the
foregoing discussion, the following:
ORDER
dismissed
i. The writ petition is .

ii. The award of the Additional Labour
Court, Hubballi dated 20.06.2011
passed in KID No.18/2011 is
upheld.
No order as to costs.



Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE

PJ/CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26