Allowed¶43

The Divisional Controller v. N Narayanaswamy

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2026WP/10131/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC Kolar Division vs N. Narayanaswamy; Karnataka High Court writ petition (L-KSRTC) allowed under Article 227; Industrial Tribunal Bengaluru award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 set aside; injury on duty (IOD) facility for 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008 denied for want of medical records beyond 30.06.2007; Tribunal held to have assumed treatment without evidence; reference rejected; judge Anant Ramanath Hegde; decision dated 7 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru set aside; consequently, the reference stands rejected. ¶43

The Divisional Controller Vs N Narayanaswamy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru set aside; consequently, the reference stands rejected.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the Industrial Tribunal's award directing the petitioner-Corporation to grant injury-on-duty (IOD) facility from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008, passed in the absence of any medical records supporting the respondent's claim beyond 30.06.2007, was sustainable or warranted interference under Article 227.

¶34

Court's answer

The medical records made available before the Tribunal indicated that the respondent/driver took treatment from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007; beyond 30.06.2007 no medical records were made available to support his claim to injury on duty facility.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The Tribunal merely assumed that the respondent/driver was under treatment beyond 30.06.2007 and directed IOD facility to be accorded to him without any evidence, although the claim of treatment beyond 30.06.2007 was seriously disputed by the petitioner-Corporation.

¶35

Key takeaways

The impugned award passed by the Tribunal being without evidence, it called for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Anant Ramanath Hegde J.), 07.01.2026 — WP No.10131 of 2020 (L-KSRTC): The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Kolar Division challenged the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru's award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 directing the Corporation to grant injury-on-duty (IOD) facility to the respondent from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008. The Court found that medical records before the Tribunal evidenced treatment only from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007, with no records beyond 30.06.2007 to support the IOD claim; the Tribunal had merely assumed continuing treatment and passed the award without any evidence, a claim seriously disputed by the Corporation. Holding the award unsustainable for want of evidence, the Court interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, allowed the writ petition, set aside the award and rejected the reference.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.10131 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101, NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. R.B. ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

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

¶13

N. NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT MULABAGAL DEPOT, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.7/2012 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶22

The employer - Corporation has filed this petition assailing the award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the Tribunal directed the petitioner-Corporation to give injury on duty (IOD) facility to the respondent from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitionerCorporation would urge that on 28.10.2006, the respondent/ driver of the petitioner-Corporation sustained injury on duty and noticing the gravity of the injury, IOD facility was accorded to him with effect from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007. However, thereafter the respondent/driver without making any representation to extend the facility and without there being any medical records to support his claims, remained absent from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008 and claimed injury on duty

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

facility for the said period. The facility was denied on the premise that there is no representation and there is no medical records to support the said claim. Thus, the industrial dispute was raised, before the Tribunal the claim was contested. However, the Tribunal without there being any medical records to support the case of the respondent/driver passed the impugned award directing the petitioner-Corporation to accord IOD facility from 01.07.2007 to 03.11.2008. It is his submission that the impugned award is wholly untenable for want of evidence and the same is passed without there being any evidence to support the claim.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent would justify

¶28

the impugned award and submits that since the respondent/ driver has sustained grievous injury and has sustained dislocation and fracture of the spine, the Tribunal has taken a compassionate view and directed the IOD facility to the respondent. Thus, he would urge that the petition be dismissed.

¶29

The Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶30

the Bar and perused the records.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The Court has noticed that the Tribunal has made an observation that the petitioner has not produced the medical records to substantiate his claim relating to IOD facility from 30.06.2007 to 03.11.2008. The medical records which were made available before the Tribunal would indicate that the respondent/driver has taken treatment from 28.10.2006 to 30.06.2007. Beyond 30.06.2007, no medical records were made available to support the claim of the respondent/driver who sought injury on duty facility.

¶35

The Tribunal assumed that the respondent/ driver was under treatment beyond 30.06.2007 and directed IOD facility to be accorded to the respondent without any evidence. Moreover, the claim that the petitioner has undergone treatment beyond 30.06.2007 is seriously disputed by the petitioner-Corporation.

¶36

Hence, the Court is of the view that impugned award passed by the Tribunal is without evidence and same calls for interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

¶37

Hence, the following:

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:983 WP No. 10131 of 2020

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶43

(ii) Impugned award dated 19.10.2019 in I.D.No.7/2012 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, is set aside. Consequently, the reference stands rejected.

¶44

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶45

SMJ

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

The Divisional Controller v. N Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. N Narayanaswamy

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

Bangalore North Industrial Workers Union (Citu) Vs the Management of M/S Swan Silks Pvt. Ltd.

Central Board of Trustees, Epf Vs M/S Gowri Hotels a Partnership Firm

M/S Innovative Techonologies Vs Armugam

The Divisional Controller Ksrtc Vs Sri R Manohar

Sri M Jagadish Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Thippamma Vs Nithyananda Yadav