Sri M K Doddaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN WP NO.32938/2017(L-KSRTC) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT AND HEAR THE PARTIES ON MERITS AND PASS A JUDGMENT THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2025 PASSED IN WP NO.32938/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL AND ETC.,

¶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

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

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

¶31

Heard Mr. Agnihotri Keshav Ranganathachar, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶32

The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.32938/2017 preferred by the appellant against the award dated 01.12.2016 in Industrial Dispute No.144/2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (for short ‘Industrial Tribunal’).

¶33

The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ court, for the sake of convenience.

¶34

By the impugned order, learned Single Judge has upheld the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, which has dismissed the reference in respect of the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner, on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, by which, one increment with cumulative effect had been stopped or withheld.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is challenging the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on following grounds:-

¶38

a) The impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge without application of mind.

¶39

b) Though the appellant was the petitioner before the writ court, on several places he has been referred to as the respondent.

¶40

c) Learned Single Judge has only made reference to the case of the parties, but, has not given any independent finding on the respective submissions of the parties.

¶41

d) Learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that there was no evidence for the alleged misconduct of insubordination and without appreciating the fact that there was no evidence, learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

¶42

e) Learned Single Judge has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner, being a

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Member of the Labour Union, he has been victimized

¶46

by the Management and imposition of the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is the result of victimization of the petitioner.

¶47

He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge requires to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

¶48

To test the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner, we would like to take note of a few facts and the evidence on record, as noticed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

¶49

The Government of Karnataka, vide order dated 20.05.2015 under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute in Reference, which would read as under:-

¶50

DqÀ½vÀ ªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, §¤ßªÀÄAl¥À, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ, EªÀgÀÄ G¥ÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀAWÀ (EAmÉPï), £ÀA.357, 14£ÉÃ

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ¸ÀgÀ¸Àéw¥ÀÄgÀA, ªÉÄÊ¸ÀÆgÀÄ, - 570 009 EªÀjAzÀ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¸À®àqÀÄªÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ J.PÉ.zÉÆqÀØAiÀÄå, ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ, £ÀA.3115 EªÀjUÉ DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå :PÀgÁ¸Á/ªÉÄÊUÁæ«/²¥Á/6799/11/1525/2014-15, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-06-2014 gÀAzÀÄ DzÉÃ±À ºÀÆgÀr¹ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ® ªÉÃvÀ£ÀzÀ MAzÀÄ ºÀAvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ±Á±ÀévÀªÁV PÉ¼ÀºÀAvÀPÉÌ E½¸À®Ä DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ¸ÀªÀÄävÀªÉÃ?

¶55

ºÁUÀ®è¢zÀÝ°è, ¸ÀzÀj PÁ«ÄðPÀ£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ CºÀðgÀÄ?

¶56

The petitioner / workman filed the claim petition stating that he was working as a Conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation. In the month of September 2011, he was performing his work on Mysuru-Panaji route on Sundays. Otherwise, he used to work on MysuruHyderabad route. There was a political turmoil in Telangana region, the schedule bus from MysuruHyderabad on Wednesday was temporarily cancelled. The allegation of the Depot Manager is that, instead of performing the work on the allotted route, the petitioner threatened the Depot Manager with dire consequences and said that other Unions and Organizations would support the case of the petitioner. The petitioner refused to perform the work on the allotted route. On the basis of the gross insubordination of his superiors in refusing to perform the duty on the alternate route, an article of charge was issued

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

against the petitioner and after conducting the departmental enquiry, punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority by reducing his one increment with cumulative effect.

¶61

Learned Industrial Tribunal framed two issues regarding the validity of the domestic enquiry and validity of punishment order imposed on the petitioner. After examining the evidence brought on record, the Industrial Tribunal held that the enquiry was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the relevant service rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. The charge against the petitioner for insubordination was adequately proved on the basis of the evidence. In view thereof, as the charge was proved in the domestic enquiry, there was no question of interfering with the order of punishment, and the Industrial Tribunal would not have the power to interfere with the order of punishment passed in the domestic enquiry against the petitioner/workman for misconduct if same was proved and the injury was conducted as per the prescribed procedure in due observance of the principles of natural justice.

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The award passed by the Industrial Tribunal came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge, after examining the award, found that the evidence clearly established insubordination on the part of the petitioner. Once the charge of insubordination got proved, learned Single Judge upheld the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and dismissed the writ petition.

¶65

We have gone through the impugned judgment and award. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment without application of mind is devoid of any substance. The Writ Petition is not a regular first appeal against the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Writ Court is required to examine whether any error of law or jurisdiction has been committed by the Industrial Tribunal or whether the findings of the Industrial Tribunal are perverse.

¶66

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:9165-DB WA No. 01 of 2026

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Having gone through the impugned award, we are of the considered view that the learned Industrial Tribunal has neither committed any error of law or jurisdiction, nor does the award suffer from any perversity.

¶69

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued the appeal as if we are sitting in a regular first appeal against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Industrial Tribunal. We are not a regular first appeal, as the learned counsel would like us to exercise the jurisdiction. We do not find that the learned Single Judge or the Industrial Tribunal erred in any manner in recording the finding of fact that there was insubordination by the petitioner.

¶70

We, therefore, dismiss the writ appeal.

¶71

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶72

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶73

Bss

¶74

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri M K Doddaiah v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M K Doddaiah 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 Geetha Devi Vs Syed Basheer Ahmed @ Alla Bhakas

Satchmo Holdings Limited Vs Bangalore Baptist Church Trust

Usha Vs M Velu

Sri D K Satisha Vs the Senior Divisional Manager

The Commissioner Vs Sri Jagadeesh Reddy

M/S Novus Indiana Leisurez LLP Vs Mr.Mn Sreenivasa