Dismissed¶¶42

Sri.P.M.Manjunath v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/22367/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC employee dismissal for unauthorized absence; challenge confined to Labour Court's denial of back wages (I.I.D.No.34/2012, order dated 18.08.2014); back wages discretionary, judicial review limited to arbitrary/capricious exercise; denial upheld as petitioner rendered no actual service during relevant period; suspension revoked 22.03.2010 with stoppage of suspension allowance; plea of non-communication of revocation order rejected; Writ Petition No. 22367 of 2016 (L-KSRTC), High Court of Karnataka, Justice Jyoti M, decision date 17.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court declined back wages on the ground that the petitioner had not actually rendered any service during the relevant period, and this Court holds that denial to be just and proper with well-founded reasoning. ¶¶36

Sri.P.M.Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Labour Court was justified in denying back wages to the petitioner despite having allowed the reference in part against the order of dismissal. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Grant or refusal of back wages lies within the discretionary domain of the Court; such exercise of discretion is not open to challenge in collateral proceedings, the scope of judicial review is limited, and interference is warranted only where the discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of settled principles of law.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

The contention of non-receipt/non-communication of the suspension-revocation order is rejected: the suspension was revoked on 22.03.2010, the Corporation discontinued payment of suspension wages thereafter, and the employee took no steps to challenge or seek clarification regarding the discontinuance; hence the workman's contention cannot be sustained.ratio¶¶41
The discretion exercised by the Labour Court in refusing back wages is found to be just and proper, warranting no interference.ratio¶¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (L-KSRTC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by a dismissed KSRTC employee (P.M. Manjunath) against the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Chamarajanagar Division, confined to denial of back wages. The employee, dismissed on 28.06.2012 for unauthorized absence after a departmental inquiry, had obtained only partial success before the Labour Court in I.I.D.No.34/2012 (order dated 18.08.2014), which declined back wages. Held: (i) grant or refusal of back wages lies within the discretionary domain of the Court; such exercise of discretion is not open to challenge in collateral proceedings, judicial review being limited to cases where discretion is exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or in disregard of settled legal principles; (ii) the Labour Court's denial of back wages, grounded on the finding that the petitioner rendered no actual service during the relevant period, is just and proper; (iii) the plea that the order revoking the 2009 suspension was never communicated fails — the suspension was revoked on 22.03.2010, suspension/subsistence allowance was discontinued thereafter, and the employee took no steps to challenge or clarify the discontinuance. Writ Petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of and interim relief, if any, discharged.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 22367 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P.M.MANJUNATH, S/O. P.MAHADEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KODIUGANE VILLAGE, VENKATAYANA CHATRA POST, CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KANTHARAJA V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIVISION, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.Kantharaja V., counsel for the petitioner, appeared through video conferencing and Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the respondent, appeared in person.

¶23

2. The petition averments are as follows:

¶24

The petitioner was employed in the Corporation’s establishment and was proceeded against departmentally for the alleged misconduct of unauthorized absence. Consequently, Articles of Charge were issued against him. An Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a report concluding that the charges stood proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry report and, by order dated 28.06.2012, dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, he raised a dispute in I.I.D.No.34/2012. the Labor Court vide order dated 18.08.2014 allowed the petition in part, and the entitlement to backwages was declined. The petition is filed as far as the denial of back wages is concerned.

¶25

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court’s decision denying back wages is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that although the petitioner was placed under suspension in 2009, the order revoking the suspension was never communicated to him. Therefore, it is argued that the charges levelled against him are unfair and that he is entitled to back wages.

¶29

In response, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the suspension order was issued on 23.10.2009 and was subsequently revoked on 22.03.2010. It is also stated that the Corporation had stopped paying suspension allowance thereafter. Hence, the petitioner’s claim that he was unaware of the revocation of suspension is not sustainable.

¶30

Heard the arguments and perused the records

¶31

carefully.

¶32

The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Labour Court was justified in denying back wages.

¶33

The facts are sufficiently set out and do not call for repetition. The only issue concerns the denial of back wages.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The Labour Court, after an elaborate consideration of the material on record, declined to award back wages on the ground that the petitioner had not actually rendered any service during the relevant period. In my view, the denial of back wages is just and proper, and the reasoning assigned therefore is evident and well founded.

¶37

It is well settled that the grant or refusal of back wages lies within the discretionary domain of the Court. Such exercise of discretion is not open to challenge in collateral proceedings. The scope of judicial review in this regard is limited. Interference is warranted only where the discretion is shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or in disregard of settled principles of law. In the present case, the discretion exercised by the Court is found to be just and proper, warranting no interference.

¶38

The contention regarding non-receipt of the order revoking suspension cannot be accepted. The reason is straightforward: as a matter of common understanding, when an employee is placed under suspension, he is paid subsistence allowance, and upon revocation of such suspension, the

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29694 WP No. 22367 of 2016

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

employer ordinarily discontinues the payment of such allowance. In the present case, the suspension was revoked on 22.03.2010, and thereafter the Corporation stopped payment of suspension wages. Further, no steps were taken by the employee to challenge or seek clarification regarding the discontinuance of the allowance. In these circumstances, the contention of the workman cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected. The award of the Labour Court is just and proper. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶42

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶43

Because of the dismissal the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of, and interim relief, if any, stands discharged.

¶44

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

Sri.P.M.Manjunath v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P.M.Manjunath 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

Sri H S Srinivas @ Srinivas S Gowda Vs Authorised Officer Canara Bank

Management of National Education Vs Smt.Chanamma

Sri H P Somashekar Vs the Management of Ifb Appliances Ltd.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs v Prakash Reddy

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri M Venkateshappa

Smt Sumalakshmi Vs Sri R a Mahesh