Dismissed¶44

Sri Manjegowda v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC14 Oct 2025WA/1320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC conductor Manjegowda; withheld annual increments 1996-2001; unchallenged punishment orders withholding increment (2001, April 2002, December 2002); Industrial Tribunal Mysore Reference No.24/2004 award dated 11.04.2014; Labour Court Chikkamagalur reinstatement with 50% backwages; W.P.No.30909/1992; W.P.No.41953/2014; W.P.No.19250/2015; writ appeal under S. 4 Karnataka High Court Act; appeal dismissed; Single Judge order upheld; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

When the punishment order imposing withholding of increments remains unchallenged, directing the Department to pay the withheld increments would amount to setting aside punishment orders which were never under challenge; the workman is therefore not entitled to such increments unless the punishment orders are set aside. ¶44

Sri Manjegowda Vs the Divisional Controller — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40920-DB WA No. 1320 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1320 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI MANJEGOWDA

¶12

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA, CONDUCTOR, KSRTC, RESIDING AT NO.141, COURT ROAD, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI. NAVEENKUMAR G.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S.B, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R, ADVOCATE)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:40920-DB WA No. 1320 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No-41953/2014 FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE PASSED IN WP No-19250/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION IN ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONER CONSEQUENTLY AND ALLOW THE WP No-41953/2014 FILE BY THE APPELLANT AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION TO PAY THE ANNUAL INCREMENT WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGLY WITHHELD BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1996 TO 2001 WITH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL MONETARY BENEFITS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

The present writ appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41953/2014 c/w W.P.No.19250/2015.

¶28

The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this

¶29

writ appeal are that, the appellant was appointed as a Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hassan Division in the year 1982. He was confirmed in the

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:40920-DB WA No. 1320 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

service on 31.10.1988. The petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent for 572 days and therefore, the Corporation dispensed with his services.

¶33

The appellant raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court at Chikkamagalur. The learned Labour Court set aside the order of termination of the petitioner and directed for his reinstatement along with 50% backwages with continuity of service for all purposes.

¶34

The respondent-Corporation thereafter challenged the said award before this Court in W.P.No.30909/1992. This Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition and upheld the award passed in favour of the appellant.

¶35

The petitioner raised another Industrial Dispute regarding his pay fixation inasmuch as the Corporation had denied the increments to the petitioner for the year 1996 to 2001. The Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.24/2004 answered and upheld the claim of the appellant for grant of increments as claimed by him excluding for the year 2000 to 2002. The appellant as well as the respondent-Corporation filed

¶36

two Writ Petitions in W.P.No.41953/2014 c/w

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40920-DB WA No. 1320 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

W.P.No.19250/2015 respectively impugning the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 11.04.2014 in Reference No.24/2004.

¶40

The learned Single Judge has been of the view that

¶41

the findings recorded by the Tribunal that there was no basis for Corporation to deny an increment for the period from 27.10.2000 to 24.12.2002 was erroneous finding. The appellant was imposed with an order of punishment in the month of 2001 withholding increment for a period of six months and thereafter, further he was imposed with another punishment of withholding one increment for one year in the month of April, 2002 and withholding one increment for two years in the month of December, 2002. Since these punishment orders remained unchallenged, the petitioner was not entitled for any increments and unless the punishment orders were set-aside, the Industrial Tribunal could not have directed for payment of increments which were withheld as a result of the punishment imposed on the appellant/workman. We therefore, do not find that there is any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40920-DB WA No. 1320 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

When the punishment order imposed on the petitioner for withholding of the increments remained unchallenged, directing the Department to pay the increments would amount to setting aside those punishment orders, which were never under challenge. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal and uphold the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶45

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶46

SD/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶47

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶48

HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Manjegowda v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjegowda v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shashikala C Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri Vittal Rai M v Vs the Karantaka State Road Transport Corporation

Mr Vijaya Shekar Thangiah, Vs a Shivakumar

M/S Jamia Musjid and Muslim Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha Murthy Naik Vs J R Srinivas

Smt. Mangala Gowri Vs the State of Karnataka