THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC, vs MANSOOR ALI S/O. LATE PEERASAB

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 64296 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC,
GULBARGA DIVSION, GULBARGA.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SADIQ N. GOODWALA, SRI. S. C. BHUTI AND
SMT. SHASHIKALA L. DESAI, ADVOCATES)

AND:



SRI. MANSOOR ALI S/O LATE PEERASAB,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCCU: CONDUCTOR,
T.C. NO. 1153, GULBARGA DIVISION,
DEPOT- II, GULBARGA.



…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR M. MAGADI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227



OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN A

BHARATHI
H M
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
28.10.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.11.07 10:59:00
+0530

TRIBUNAL, HUBLI, IN I.D. NO.311/09 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND
CONSEQUENTLY MAY PLEASE TO DISMISS I.D. NO.311/09 FILED BY
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI 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

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


ORAL ORDER



1. The petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 28.10.2011 passed by the
Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in ID No.311/2009. The
Industrial Tribunal partially set aside the order of the
Disciplinary Authority dated 30.05.2009 inasmuch as the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has
been reduced and the Tribunal has substituted the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.


2. I have heard Sri S. C. Bhuti, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Arunkumar M. Magadi appearing on
behalf of Sri Arvind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the
respondent.


3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the
dispute involved in the Writ Petition are that the
respondent was working as a conductor with the
petitioner-Corporation and he was found to have collected
monies from the passengers and not issued tickets to

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


them. An enquiry was conducted and the respondent-
workman was found to be guilty of misconduct. The
respondent had sufficient opportunity before the Enquiry
Officer. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed a
punishment of reducing the basic pay of the respondent to
the minimum basic pay of the conductors for a period of
five years without cumulative effect. The respondent-
workman raised an industrial dispute in which the present
impugned judgment and award has been passed by the
Industrial Tribunal.


4. Sri S.C. Bhuti, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the Tribunal was in error in modifying the
punishment imposed by the respondent-workman, having
upheld the finding as to misconduct. He relies on
judgments of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.101194/2013
and 28109/2014.


5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the
Writ Petition on the ground that the Tribunal found

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


sufficient justification to hold that the punishment was
disproportionate and he submits that there is no error in
the judgment and award of the Industrial Tribunal.


6. Having considered the judgment and award of
the Tribunal and also the rival submissions, I find that
there is force in the contention of Sri S.C. Bhuti. Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not
empower the Industrial Tribunal to interfere with a minor
penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. In the
present case, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the
penalty of reduction of the basic pay without cumulative
effect.


7. It is necessary to note that in para 13 of the
judgment, the Industrial Tribunal clearly held that the
misconduct alleged against the workman stood
established. Having so concluded that the misconduct was
established, the Tribunal was plainly wrong in interfering

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority.

8. In N.E.K.R.T.C Bidar vs. Shantveer s/o
1
Karabasappa Jankatti , this Court has held as under :
“5. In the case of THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KSRTC, BANGALORE Vs. J.B. MAHALINGAPPA, KOLAR,
(in W.P. No.15726/2001 decided on 03.03.2005), it
was held that the Tribunal cannot exercise its power
under S.11-A in case the punishment is not one falling
under the aforesaid categories. In the case of BMTC
Vs. BMTC AND STATE TRANSPORT NOUKARARA
SANGHA, reported in ILR 2011 KARNATAKA 2037,
following the decision of the Supreme Court in
WORKMEN OF FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. OF
INDIA (PVT.) LTD. Vs. THE MANAGEMENT, reported in
AIR 1973 SC 1227, it was held that the punishment
imposed being only to withhold two annual increments
with cumulative effect, Industrial Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to exercise power under S.11-A of the Act
and substitute the punishment.

6. In view of the above, to the extent of interfering
with the punishment, despite finding entered in para
16 of the Award, there is arbitrariness and illegality. In
view of the finding of the Tribunal in para 16, the
modification of the impugned punishment being
perverse and illegal to the extent of substitution of
punishment is liable to be quashed.”


Divisional Controller of KSRTC vs. Sri. G.
9. In
2
Kenchappa , this Court has held as under :

1
W.P.No.101194/2013 disposed of on 24.11.2016,
2
W.P.No.28109/2014 disposed of on 03.10.2023

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


“5. The Tribunal erred in modifying the imposition
of minor penalty. This modification is without
jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to
modify the minor penalty. It should have been seen
that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,
it could not have been pressed into service in respect
of the minor penalty. The Tribunal erred in modifying
the minor penalty despite affirming the misconduct.
The managerial decision imposing minor penalty is
absolute and the same cannot be modified in exercise
of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes
Act. For the reasons stated above, the Award passed
by the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside.
Accordingly, it is set-aside.”


10. Having regard to the facts of the case and the
applicable law as noted above, there is no doubt that the
Industrial Tribunal was error in interfering with the
punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. While
interfering with the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority, the Industrial Tribunal substituted
its own penalty for that imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority in the following terms:
“ORDER
Reference bearing No.Ka.E : 566 : IDG : 2009
dated 30.5.2009 under section 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under
Secretary attached to the Department of Labour,
Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby allowed
in part. The impugned order of punishment bearing No.
Ka Ra Sa : Gu Vi : Shi Sha : 3865 : 97 : 2700 : 99
dated 28.4.1999 of the Disciplinary Authority reducing
the basic pay of the workman to the minimum scale of
the conductors without cumulative effect for a period

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012


of five years is hereby set aside and by way of
modification, it is ordered that one increment of the
workman of the year 1997 be withheld for a period of
five years without cumulative effect which shall have
not the effect of postponing the future increment of the
workman. The workman is entitled to the monetary
benefits in tune with this modified order of
punishment. The management shall work out the
admissible monetary benefits in tune with this modified
order of punishment and extend the admissible
monetary benefits to the workman without any interest
within six months from the date of publication of this
award. In the circumstances, I direct the parties to
bear their own costs.”


11. Since the Industrial Tribunal does not possess
the jurisdiction to alter the punishment when the penalty
is a minor penalty, the impugned judgment and award of
the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Resultantly, the
following order is made:
ORDER

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.


(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated
28.10.2011 passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, Hubballi in ID No.311/2009 is set
aside.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17561
WP No. 64296 of 2012


CNR: KAHC020006612012



(iii) The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary
Authority by the order dated 30.05.2009 will
revive as a consequence.

No order as to costs.


Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE



NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19