Allowed¶54

B Honnappa v. Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2025WP/5749/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC workman; reinstatement; parity of punishment; victimization; unauthorised absence 15.04.2015-09.09.2015; back wages; continuity of service; consequential benefits; four annual increments withheld with cumulative effect; Labour Court Chikkamagaluru; I.D.A. No.03/2017; award dated 27.11.2018 modified; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; WP No. 5749 of 2020 (L-KSRTC); High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; Anant Ramanath Hegde J.; decided 02.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned award modified: petitioner granted continuity of service and other consequential benefits; back wages during the period of dismissal expressly denied; withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect retained; compliance ordered within three months. ¶54

B Honnappa Vs Divisional Controller — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the reinstated petitioner is entitled to continuity of service, consequential benefits and back wages denied by the Labour Court, having regard to the minor penalties imposed on other employees absent for longer periods than the petitioner. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The penalty of denying continuity of service and other consequential benefits is not justified, because the Corporation did not impose such a penalty on other employees who remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 4 months.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

The records reveal that the differential treatment of the petitioner is a case of victimization.

¶48

Key takeaways

The petitioner is entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits.ratio¶55
The petitioner is expressly not entitled to back wages during the period of dismissal.ratio¶56
The penalty of withholding four annual increments with cumulative effect imposed by the Labour Court will remain in force.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge writ petition (Arts. 226/227, L-KSRTC) by a reinstated KSRTC workman challenging so much of the Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru award dated 27.11.2018 in I.D.A. No.03/2017 as denied him back wages, continuity of service and consequential benefits and withheld four annual increments with cumulative effect, even though the Court below had set aside his dismissal (for unauthorised absence from 15.04.2015 to 09.09.2015) as disproportionate. Observing that co-employees absent far longer - C. Doddaiah (2 yrs 6 mths), S.M. Dashma (1 yr 11 mths), Abdul Samad (2 yrs 6 mths), Venkatesh (1 yr 7 mths) and M. Rajkumara (348 days) - received only minor penalties, and that back wages/continuity had not been denied to them, the High Court found the denial unjustified and the differential treatment a case of victimization. Order: petition allowed; award modified - continuity of service and consequential benefits granted; no back wages for the dismissal period; increment-withholding penalty retained; compliance within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 5749 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

B HONNAPPA, S/O BYRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A SHETTY HALLI AT AND POST, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK, HASSAN DISTCTI-573128.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, CHIKKAMAGALUR DIVISION, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶15

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101.

¶17

(BY SRI B L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN IDA NO.3/2017 DATED 27.11.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS DENIAL OF CONTINUITY OF SERVICE, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, BACKWAGES AND FOUR ANNUAL INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the workman assailing the award dated 27.11.2018 in I.D.A. No.03/2017 on the file of Labour Court, Chikkamagaluru to the extent of denial of back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

¶27

In terms of the said award, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated after setting aside the order of dismissal from service. The respondent/Corporation has accepted the award and reinstated the petitioner.

¶28

The Labour Court has denied the back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits. The Labour Court has also withheld 4 annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for remaining unauthorisedly absent from 15.04.2015 to 09.09.2015. It is submitted that petitioner had sustained injury on account of accident while on duty and as such, he was not in a position to attend the work and his application seeking leave was rejected.

¶33

In the disciplinary enquiry, the charges were held to be proved and penalty of dismissal from service was imposed which is later challenged by the petitioner and modified as noted above.

¶34

The Labour Court while setting aside the penalty of dismissal from service has also concluded that the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct and also by referring to the punishment imposed on certain other employees of the Corporation who were absent for more than 4 months and above, has concluded that the petitioner should also be directed to be reinstated with lesser penalty which is imposed as above.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶39

would submit that though the Labour Court has noticed that minor penalty has been imposed on certain other employees whose names are spelt out in para No.21 of the impugned award, the Labour Court has failed to grant the relief for back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand would submit that the penalty imposed by the Labour Court is proportionate to the misconduct alleged. There is no infirmity and there is no scope to interfere in the impugned award in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶42

In paragraph No.21 of the impugned award, the

¶43

Labour Court has noticed that one C. Doddaiah was unauthorisedly absent for 2 years and 6 months and one

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

S.M. Dashma was unauthorisedly absent for 1 year and 11 months and one Abdul Samad was unauthorisedly absent for 2 years and 6 months and on all these persons only minor penalty was imposed.

¶47

It is also noticed by the Labour Court that one Venkatesh unauthorisedly absent for 1 year 7 months and again one M. Rajkumara remained absent for 348 days and only minor penalty was imposed on them.

¶48

It is not the case of the respondent/Corporation that against those persons, the back wages or continuity service or the consequential benefits were denied. This being the position, this Court finds merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty of denying continuity of service and other consequential benefits is not justified given the fact that the Corporation has not imposed such penalty on other employees who remained unauthorisedly absent for more than 4 months. The records reveal that it is a case of victimization. Hence, the following:-

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:23725 WP No. 5749 of 2020

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

ORDER

¶53