The Divisional Controller vs Dawalsabs/O. Dongrisab Ghodesavar

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Nov 12, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1260919

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1260919
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: Anant Ramanath Hegde
Decided On: Nov 12, 2025
Case Number: WP/67041/2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Divisional Controller

Respondent

Dawalsabs/O. Dongrisab Ghodesavar

Excerpt

.....this petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india by the petitioner assailing the order marked as annexure-a dated 19.12.2011 passed in application no.47/2011 by the presiding officer, labour court, bijapur.2. brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that therespondent was removed from employment. pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry, the said order of dismissal was challenged by raising an industrial dispute in kid no.23/2009. the said application filed by the workman was allowed. the penalty of dismissal from service was set aside, and the petitioner/employer was directed to reinstate the respondent/workman into employment without any back wages.3. thereafter, the respondent/workman filed an application under section 33(c) (2) of the industrial disputes act of 19471, claiming the benefits under the award. the respondent/workman claimed an amount of ₹2,19,546/. for short, ‘act of 1947’ -3-4. the employer/petitioner filed objection and urged that the respondent/workman was entitled to only ₹1,02,756/-.5. after the enquiry, the court held that the respondent/workman was entitled to ₹1,17,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of applicationtill entire recovery of the amount. learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the application under section 33(c)(2) is not maintainable, as back wages were denied.6. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wouldalso submit that the calculation made by the respondent/workman is not supported by any material, and the award of ₹14,744/-, which is in excess of admitted liability of ₹1,02,756/-, ought to be set aside.7. learned counsel for the respondent, though served with notice, is not represented.8. the court has considered the contentions raised in the bar and perused the records. -4-9. the contention that the application under section 33(c) (2) is not maintainable is liable to be rejected. the award,in addition to directing.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 67041 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C. BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT, R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. DAWALSAB S/O. DONGRISAB GHODESAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. TIPPU NAGAR, 2ND CROSS, BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. … RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A KARNATAKA WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.11.20 12:45:43 +0530 APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE

AWARD MADE IN APPLICATION NO.47/2011 DATED 19/12/2011 AWARD OF LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR (ANNEXURE-A) AND CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE LABOUR COURT, BIJAPUR PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION NO.47/2011, AWARD DATED 19/12/2011. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -2-

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order marked as Annexure-A dated 19.12.2011 passed in Application No.47/2011 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bijapur.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the

respondent was removed from employment. Pursuant to a disciplinary enquiry, the said order of dismissal was challenged by raising an industrial dispute in KID No.23/2009. The said application filed by the workman was allowed. The penalty of dismissal from service was set aside, and the petitioner/employer was directed to reinstate the respondent/workman into employment without any back wages.

3. Thereafter, the respondent/workman filed an application under Section 33(C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 19471, claiming the benefits under the award. The respondent/workman claimed an amount of ₹2,19,546/. For short, ‘Act of 1947’ -3-

4. The employer/petitioner filed objection and urged that the respondent/workman was entitled to only ₹1,02,756/-.

5. After the enquiry, the Court held that the respondent/workman was entitled to ₹1,17,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application

till entire recovery of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the application under Section 33(C)(2) is not maintainable, as back wages were denied.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

also submit that the calculation made by the respondent/workman is not supported by any material, and the award of ₹14,744/-, which is in excess of admitted liability of ₹1,02,756/-, ought to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, though served with notice, is not represented.

8. The Court has considered the contentions raised in the Bar and perused the records. -4-

9. The contention that the application under Section 33(C) (2) is not maintainable is liable to be rejected. The award,

in addition to directing re-instatement, has also directed continuity of service and consequential benefits payable to the workman. What has been denied is only the back wages.

10. The workman is entitled to the consequential benefits and continuity of service. This being the position, the workman was justified in filing an application under Section 33(C) (2) of Act of 1947.

11. Before the Labour court, the respondent admitted the

liability to the extent of ₹1,02,756/-. The dispute was in respect of excess above amount of ₹1,02,756/-. The petitioner made a claim for ₹2,19,546/-. The Labour Court has noticed that the petitioner/employer has not produced the records relating to the salary paid to the workman. The contention that the petitioner has not produced the records relating to respondent’s salary, is rejected on the premise that the employer is the custodian of the documents.

-5-

12. This Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court, wherein it has awarded ₹14,744/- towards the contribution towards Provident Fund, D.R.E.F and P.T.

13. No ground is made out to interfere with the order in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

15. The amount payable to the workman shall be deposited before the Labour Court within two months from today. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 10

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2025 Same Parties The Divisional Controller vs Dawalsabs/O. Dongrisab Ghodesavar Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Anant Ramanath Hegde