Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Prakash Reddy

Karnataka HC17 Jun 2026WP/39311/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside an Industrial Tribunal award which wrongly examined the merits of a dismissed employee's case under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The High Court held that under Section 33(2)(b), the Tribunal's scope is limited to verifying fair procedure and natural justice, not adjudicating merits, and allowed the fortifying of the dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

Award of the Industrial Tribunal dismissing the application under Section 33(2)(b) dated 13.04.2023 set aside and approval of dismissal is accorded.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs v… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶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. 39311 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

V.PRAKASH REDDY, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S

¶13

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

¶14

M.BHAGYAMMA, W/O. V.PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶15

ANIL KUMAR P., S/O. V.PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶16

NANDEESH KUMAR P., S/O. V.PRAKASH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶17

ALL ARE R/O. NO.28, 2ND MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHI NILAYA, PALASANDRA LAYOUT,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR - 563101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K.S.PRADEEP SKANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ANUSHA B. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. C.V.ANNAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

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

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Smt.H.R.Renuka, counsel for the petitioner,

¶28

Sri.C.V.Annaiah, counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri. K.S.

¶29

Pradeep S. Kandan, counsel on behalf of Smt.Anusha B. Reddy,

¶30

for respondents Nos. 1 and 3 have appeared in person.

¶31

2. The short facts are these:

¶32

The respondent, Sri.V.Prakash Reddy, was a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 01.04.2011, he was on duty on the bus that belonged to the Corporation bearing registration No.F-8480 that was plying on the route from Bengaluru to Hyderabad. The checking officials intercepted the bus at Bengaluru Bus Station, and it was found that the

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

workman had an unaccounted amount of Rs.2,195/-. Hence, He

¶36

was issued with Articles of Charge alleging that he was in possession of an unaccounted amount of Rs.2,195/-. The checking officials recorded in the report that he did not offer any explanation for the possession of excess cash. The respondent submitted his reply to the Articles of Charge, denied the charges and contended that the amount was his personal amount he had with him to give to his son at Yelahanka. As the bus got delayed on the said day, his son, having waited at Yelahanka, went back to his hostel, and therefore, he could not give the cash to his son and the said amount remained with him. He was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry, and the reply was found unsatisfactory. Hence, an inquiry officer was appointed, and he participated in the inquiry and availed the opportunity provided to him during the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are established. He was issued a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer. He submitted his reply to the same. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and dismissed him from service on the charge of proven misconduct on 01.06.2013. On the very same

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

day, i.e., on 01.06.2013, the Corporation filed an application for approval before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.148/2005 in compliance with the requirements of provisos of Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act by enclosing a cheque towards one month's salary, and the same was registered as SLA 600/2013 before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru.

¶40

The workman died during the pendency of the case. However, his legal representatives were brought on record. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. However, the application was rejected on 13.04.2023. The Corporation has assailed the award in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶41

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶42

Counsel for the Corporation, while advancing her arguments, vehemently contended that although the Tribunal recorded a finding that there was compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, it nevertheless proceeded to dismiss the application. She submitted that the

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Tribunal committed an error in examining the merits of the disciplinary action while adjudicating an application under Section 33(2)(b), as the scope of inquiry under the said provision is limited and does not extend to a consideration of the merits of the case. She placed reliance on the following decision:

¶46

JOHN D’SOUZA VS. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD

¶47

TRANSPORT CORPORATION reported in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8042 OF 2019.

¶48

In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 placed reliance on the decision in JAYANTI DEVI V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, reported in 2001 SCC ONLINE JHAR 370, to contend that since the workman died during the pendency of the proceedings, it must be construed that he died while in service. He further submitted that, in view of the said position and for other reasons urged, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶49

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

The point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application.

¶54

The facts of the case have been sufficiently noticed and do not warrant reiteration. The controversy lies within a narrow compass and pertains to the rejection of the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶55

It is not in dispute that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, culminating in an order of dismissal from service dated 01.06.2013. On the very same day, the Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) seeking approval of the dismissal order. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the requirements of Section 33(2)(b) had been duly complied with. However, having arrived at such a conclusion, it nevertheless proceeded to dismiss the application by examining the merits of the disciplinary action as though it were adjudicating the industrial dispute itself. Such an approach is clearly unsustainable in law.

¶56

The apex court has laid down the law in the John D'Souza case as under.

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

24. Section 33(2)(b) of the Act, thus, in the very nature of things contemplates an enquiry by way of summary proceedings as to whether a proper domestic enquiry has been held to prove the misconduct so attributed to the workmen and whether he has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in consonance with the principles of natural justice. As a natural corollary thereto, the Labour Court or the Forum concerned will lift the veil to find out that there is no hidden motive to punish the workman or an abortive attempt to punish him for a non-existent misconduct.

¶61

25. The Labour Court/Tribunal, nevertheless, while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b ), would remember that such like summary proceedings are not akin and at par with its jurisdiction to adjudicate an industrial dispute’ under</mark> Section 10(1)(c <mark>) and (d) of the Act, nor the former provision clothe it with the power to peep into the quantum of punishment for which it has to revert back to</mark> Section 11 <mark>A of the Act. Where the Labour Court/Tribunal, thus, do not find the domestic enquiry defective and the principles of fair and just play have been adhered to, they will accord the necessary approval to the action taken by the employer, albeit without prejudice to the right of the workman to raise an industrial dispute’ referrable for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c ) or

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

(d), as the case may be. It needs pertinent mention that an order of approval granted under Section 33(2)(b ) has no binding effect in the proceedings under Section 10(1)(c ) and (d) which shall be decided independently while weighing the material adduced by the parties before the Labour Court/Tribunal.

¶65

The Apex Court has settled the law that the scope of inquiry under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act is limited and does not extend to a consideration of the merits of the case. Hence, impugned order is unsustainable in law.

¶66

The decision relied upon by the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case, as it is not a case of 33(2)(b) application.

¶67

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in SLA 600/2013 vide Annexure-F is set aside. The application filed by the Corporation under Section 33(2)(b) is allowed and approval is accorded.

¶68

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶69

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:29690 WP No. 39311 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

Because of the disposal of the Writ Petition, the interim order granted if any stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶73

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

¶74

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Prakash Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Prakash Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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.

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri M Venkateshappa

Smt Sumalakshmi Vs Sri R a Mahesh

S S R Constructions Vs Karnataka Bank Ltd.