Dismissed¶51

Maligamma v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WA/1770/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC Chamarajanagar; apprentice trainee versus regular workman; Sections 25-F and 25-B and Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; IID No.28/2012 Labour Court Mysuru award dated 02.12.2013 set aside; reinstatement with 50% backwages refused; Advertisement No.2/2010 dated 03.09.2010; writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act dismissed; NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB.

What did the court decide?

The claim of the appellant that she was a regular workman in the Corporation is completely false; she concealed that she was selected as an apprentice pursuant to Advertisement No.2/2010 issued on 03.09.2010, and after completion of apprenticeship training her continuation in the Corporation may have been gratuitous, not as a regular workman. ¶47

Maligamma Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MALIGAMMA

¶11

D/O. PUTTANAIKA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HURA VILLAGE AND POST, HULLANAHALLI HOBLI NANJANGUD TALUK

¶12

MYSURU DISTRICT 571 324.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. NAIK V S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR.

¶18

BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19/08/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.41146/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.41146/2014.

¶30

The appellant had applied for apprenticeship training in the Corporation pursuant to the Advertisement No.2/2010 i.e. 03.09.2010. The list of candidates selected to undergo apprenticeship training in the corporation was published on 12.10.2010. The appellant's name appeared at Sl.No.23 of the said list. The appellant was deputed to undergo apprenticeship training from 14.10.2010 to 13.10.2011 and the stipend fixed for the said period was Rs.1,090/- per month. However, it appears that after completing the apprenticeship training on 13.10.2011, the appellant continued in the Corporation though against no definite post. She was paid a sum of Rs.3,400/- for which there is no evidence. In the

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

evidence of the Corporation's witness before the labour Court,

¶34

it was stated that she was not paid from the Accounts Department of the Corporation, but some amount was collected to be paid to her.

¶35

The appellant was not allowed to come to the Corporation w.e.f 06.10.2012. The appellant raised an industrial dispute in IID No. 28/2012 before the Labour Court, Mysuru. The Labour Court, after adjudication of the claim, held that the Corporation had failed to prove that the respondent was an apprentice and further held that the refusal of employment amounted to contravention of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the ID Act'), inasmuch as the workman had tendered 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the Corporation to take back the appellant into service and post her to the post held by her, with 50% backwages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

¶36

The Labour Court, however, observed that the reinstatement should not be considered as a regularisation and reserved liberty to the Corporation to terminate the services of

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

the respondent in due compliance with the requirements and provisions of Section 25-F of the ID Act.

¶41

Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 02.12.2013 in IID No.28/2012, the State Road Transport Corporation filed the writ petition.

¶42

The learned Single Judge, has held that there was no relationship of employer and employee. The appellant would not come within the definition of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and she had not put up continuous service as defined under Section 25-B of the Act under the Corporation.

¶43

There was no contract of employment issued to the appellant. She was taken as an apprentice trainee in pursuance to the advertisement dated 03.09.2010 and she completed her apprenticeship training on 13.10.2011. The appellant, however, before the Labour Court claimed that she was appointed on 30.09.2010 in service by the Corporation, and that she was put on the regular employment as a permanent workman. The said contention and claim of the appellant were found to be completely false and contrary to the facts. The appellant did

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

not put up 240 days' work as regular worker. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has opined that the reasoning of the Labour Court and the findings recorded are contrary to the records. The appellant was not given a permanent employment and she was not a regular worker for the period from 14.10.2011 to 13.10.2011, but she was only an apprentice. The claim of the appellant before the Labour Court regarding the removal orders would not be sufficient to substantiate the claim that she was in the regular employment of the Corporation.

¶47

Considering the aforesaid facts and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, as well as considering the submissions advanced by Mr. V.S.Naik, and Smt H. R. Renuka learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered view that the claim of the appellant that she was a regular workman in the Corporation is completely false. She has concealed the fact that she was selected as apprentice in pursuance to the application made by her, for which an advertisement No.2/2010 was issued on 03.09.2010 and that after completion of apprenticeship training, her continuation in the Corporation may be gratuitous one, but not as a regular

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:6297-DB WA No. 1770 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

workman. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the award passed by the Labour Court. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge and thus, the writ appeal stands dismissed as we find no merit.

¶52

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶54

RKA

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Maligamma v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maligamma v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

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

Sri Nanjunda Murthy Vs Sri L Prahalnada Rao

Smt. Sharadamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Metmin Investments Holdings Limited Vs Puthucode Vaidyanathan Balasubramanian

Sri Vinayaka Housing Co. Operative Society Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Manuja S Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. K. T. Giriyanna Vs State of Karnataka