Karnataka High Court
WA/992/2025 of CHANDRASHEKAR M S Vs KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 20 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010408422025 NC: 2026:KHC:37068-DB WA No. 992 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: CHANDRASHEKAR M.S.,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO. 992 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKAR M.S.,
S/O SANNATHIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O MARALA VILLAGE
AND POST, AMBLE HOBLI,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
AND DISTRICT - 577 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DIVISION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:16.04.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6535/2022, TO THE
EXTENT OF DENIAL OF BACK WAGES IS CONCERNED AND
CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISSED
THE
WRIT
PETITION
BY
ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL AND ETC.,
Digitally
signed by
REKHA R
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent-workman being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16535/2022, to the extent of denial of back wages to him for the period from 04.12.2018 to 14.12.2022.
2. The appellant/respondent-workman has faced the domestic inquiry in respect of he being an accused for an alleged offence committed under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant/respondent- workman was acquitted after trial in Special Case No.256/2018 by the judgment dated 15.03.2019.
HC-KAR
However, in the domestic inquiry, he was found guilty, inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against him.
3. The respondent-Corporation filed an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 19471 seeking approval for inflicting the punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant/respondent- workman. However, the said application was rejected by the Industrial Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16.09.2021, the respondent-Corporation filed the writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge having noticed the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact of acquittal of the appellant-respondent/workman in the criminal charge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the Corporation. However, as the appellant/respondent- workman did not plead that he was employed during this 1 "the ID Act" for short
HC-KAR
period, the back wages for the said period have been denied.
5. For claiming back wages for the period when the workman was and if employment for being dismissed/removed from service and the order of dismissal/removal being set aside by the Tribunal/Court, the workman must plead and prove that he was employed from the date of dismissal/removal from service till the award/order is passed. No such pleading has been made by the appellant/respondent-workman in his statement of objections filed in the writ petition. When the necessary facts have not been pleaded and proved, this Court cannot allow the back wages for the period, when he was out of the employment.
6. We therefore find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
HC-KAR
7. If the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not implemented till date, the same should be implemented within a period of one month from today on production of the copy of the judgment and order before the Corporation by the appellant/respondent-workman.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn