IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA DATED THIS THE 29th bAY OF MARCH, 2011 BEFORE THE HONB*LE USTICE. MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR 2011L-KSRTC BETWEEN: The Divisional Conil oiler, NEERTO, Bagalk*ot Division. Through: Managing Director, NE:KRTC, Centnh Office, Sarige Sadana, Main H Poad, Gulbarga Re.presented by its; Chief Law Officer. PETITIONER (By Sri. Subhash Mailapur, Advocate) ANU: 1. Smt. Maha.devi \V/o BasavorigoudLa Patti, Age: 4 i years, 0cc: HH Work, 2. Kumari. Drakshvani D/o Basavangouda Patti, Age: 17 years, 0cc: Student. 3. iKunnin Deepa D/o Basavangouda Patti, Me: 14 wars 0cc: Student. (R-2 and R-3 being minors U/G of Their Mother R- 1) All Rio Talikoti, Tq. & Dist. Bijapur. .. RESPONDENTS This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to allow this petition and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing award dated 13.12.2010 made in application No.15/2010 by the Labour Court at Bijapur vide Annexure-B, and etc., This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The Road Transport Corporation (Employer) has questioned the order made by the Labour Court under Section 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act (for short hereinafter referred to the Act’) directing the Corporation to pay 1,43,095.00, with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 3. R.W. 1 has admitted that the deceased workman was covered with GIC Scheme. R.W.2 in his cross-examination has admitted that the Legal Representatives of the workman are entitled to 7O.OOO/- under insurance plan. It is also admitted by R.W. I that DCRB Scheme is available, and the same is the internal Scheme of the Corporation. In view of the same, the Labour Court is justified in quantifying 7O,OOO/- and 3O,OOO/- under GIC Plan/Scheme and DCRB Plan/Scheme respectively, in favour of the Legal Representatives of the workman. 4. It is also not in dispute that the workman was paid 50% of the salary during the period of suspension as subsistence allowance. Ultimately, the workman was dismissed. The workman questioned the order of dismissal by approaching the Labour Court. The Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and held that the workman is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Unfortunately, the workman died during the pendency of the petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. Thus, the Legal Representatives of the workman continued the litigation. Since the workman was directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits, he was also entitled to the remaining 50% of the amount, which was not paid during the period of suspension. Hence, no error is found in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Sd/ JUDGE *Lg/ -