Disposed¶5

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Ramu

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2025WA/1871/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC disciplinary writ appeal (WA No. 1871 of 2024, L-KSRTC), High Court of Karnataka, 24.06.2025; Division Bench upholds Single Judge's grant of 40% back wages (two-year period) to legal heirs of deceased workman Ramu, from dismissal till reinstatement on 01.06.2019; Labour Court back-wage denial set aside below; Single Judge's observation that bigamous marriage cannot violate Conduct Rules held untenable but question of law kept open with no precedential value; release of amount within 12 weeks; IA No. 2/2024 disposed; filed u/s 4 Karnataka High Court Act.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of with the grant of 40% of back wages to the respondents (legal heirs of the deceased workman) upheld; the amount to be released within 12 weeks; IA.No.2/2024 also stands disposed of. ¶5

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority Vs Ramu — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned Single Judge's direction to pay 40% of the back wages (from the date of dismissal till reinstatement on 01.06.2019) suffered from any infirmity. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The Division Bench found no infirmity in the learned Single Judge's grant of 40% of back wages, having been informed that the back wages were only for a period of two years.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The court agreed with the appellant's submission attacking the tenability of the learned Single Judge's observation that entering into a bigamous marriage cannot be in violation of the Conduct Rules.

¶4

Key takeaways

The question of law relating to the learned Single Judge's observation in paragraph No.16 (page No.15 of the paper book) is kept open and shall not have any precedential value.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (L-KSRTC) u/s 4, Karnataka High Court Act: Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority, KSRTC, Tumkur Division v. LRs of late Ramu (R. Komala, R. Chaitra, R. Bhavani). The appeal challenged the learned Single Judge's order dated 02.04.2024 in WP.No.11896/2019, which had allowed the heirs' writ petition in part, set aside the Labour Court's order not granting back wages, and directed payment of 40% of back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement on 01.06.2019. The Division Bench (V Kameswar Rao, Acting Chief Justice, and C M Joshi, J) found no infirmity in the 40% back-wages grant (the back wages being only for a period of two years) and upheld it. On the sole contested submission — that the Single Judge's observation that entering into a bigamous marriage cannot be in violation of the Conduct Rules was untenable — the court agreed with the appellant but kept the question of law arising from that observation (paragraph No.16, page No.15 of the paper book) open, declaring it shall not have any precedential value. The appeal and IA.No.2/2024 were disposed of, with the amount to be released to the respondents within 12 weeks.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:22213-DB WA No. 1871 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1871 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR, NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY MRS. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

RAMU,

¶16

SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶17

R. KOMALA, W/O. LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶18

R. CHAITRA, D/O. LATE RAMU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶19

R. BHAVANI, D/O. LATE RAMU,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:22213-DB WA No. 1871 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ALL R/O. THIMMAKKAJJI COMPOUND, NEAR RAVI DEPOT, 7^TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI, TUMKUR-572 102.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3)

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 2.4.2024 IN WP No. 11896/2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶32

The challenge in this intra-court appeal is to an order

¶33

dated 02.04.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.11896/2019, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition in-part and set aside the order of the Labour Court not granting the back wages to the respondents herein and had directed the appellantCorporation to pay 40% of the back wages from the date of the dismissal till reinstatement on 01.06.2019.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22213-DB WA No. 1871 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶37

and perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not see any infirmity insofar as grant of 40% of back wages as we have been informed that the back wages are only for a period of two years.

¶38

The only submission made by the learned

¶39

counsel for the appellant is that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that entering into the bigamous marriage cannot be in violation of the Conduct Rules is a untenable conclusion as such an observation made by the learned Single Judge need to be set aside as it will have a bearing on other cases and also shall be contrary to the Conduct Rules.

¶40

We agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the question of law relating to the observation made by he learned Single Judge in paragraph No.16 at page No.15 of the paper book

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22213-DB WA No. 1871 of 2024

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

which we have referred above is kept open and shall not

¶44

have any precedential value.

¶45

With the above observation, the appeal is

¶46

disposed of.

¶47

Since we have upheld the grant of 40% of back

¶48

wages in favour of the respondents herein who are the legal heirs of deceased workmen, the amount shall be released to the respondents within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶49

In view of disposal of the appeal, IA.No.2/2024 also

¶50

stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶53

NR/-

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller and Disciplinary Authority v. Ramu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Chowdaiah Vs Mrs. H S Venkatalakshmi

The Citizen Educational Charitable Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Gnana Shale Educational and Research Social Welfare Trust Vs Suco Souhardha Sahakari Bank.

M/S Srisai Solar Technologies Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K N Shivashankar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas M M Vs Sri. Krishna Murthy