Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M C Sathish

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2022WP/16082/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by KSRTC challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that modified disciplinary punishment against a workman for ticketless travel. The Court rejected the quashing application and directed the Corporation to adopt modern fare collection systems.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Managing Director of KSRTC is directed to consider installing equipment for electronic fare collection using smart cards, debit cards, or credit cards.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri M C Sathish — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 16082 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C, DAVANAGERE DIVISION, DAVANAGERE HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICES, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B. L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI M C SATHISH, S/O M CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, 512/1, HADADI ROAD, NEAR PETROL BUNK, OPP. ITI COLLEGE, DAVANAGERE - 577 002.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI, DATED 23-6-2011 PASSED IN I.D. NO.206 OF 2009 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner-Karnataka State Road Transport

¶23

Corporation is before this Court seeking for the following relief:

¶24

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, dated 23-6-2011 passed in I.D. No.206/2009, produced at Annexure-C."

¶25

The respondent-workman was working as a Conductor under the petitioner-Corporation. On 23-5-1997, when the respondent was discharging his duties in Bus No.F97 plying en-route Davanagere to Bavihalu, the said bus was checked by the Checking Officer and he found that the

¶26

¶27

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶28

respondent neither issued tickets to five passengers traveling from Davanagere to Chinnasamudra nor collected the requisite fare of Rs.5/- each, in all amounting to Rs.25/-. After completing the checking formalities, the Checking Officer penalised the ticketless passengers, issued memo to the respondent and submitted a detailed report to the Disciplinary Authority.

¶29

Based on the said report, the Disciplinary Authority issued Article of Charges dated 20.6.1997. Explanation submitted by the respondent being unsatisfactory and as such, the Disciplinary Authority on going through the records of the case found that the charges leveled against the respondent has been proved and imposed a minor punishment on the respondent by reducing his basic pay by one incremental stage with cumulative effect.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent raised conciliation proceedings and on failure of the same, the State Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.206 of 2009. The Tribunal by award dated 23-6-2011 modified the order of punishment by withholding one increment for the year 1997 without cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the penalty imposed on 22-9-1997 has been challenged belatedly in the year 2009 and the same is not considered by the Tribunal and on that ground, he submits that the present petition is to be allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal be set aside.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶36

Though the respondent-workman is served way back in the year 2012, he has neither appeared inperson, nor represented by a counsel.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondent-workman is presently working with the petitioner-Corporation and there is no further default on the part of the respondent.

¶38

The only ground which is raised is that, there was delay of more than nine years in filing of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal. Considering the fact that the matter is pending from the year 2012 and the respondent-workman has been working in the petitioner- Corporation without any further default, I am of the considered opinion that the modification of punishment imposed by the Tribunal is not required to be

¶39

¶40

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶41

interfered with and as such, the petition is required to be rejected.

¶42

This Court has come across several matters where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against Conductor, or Driver-cum-Conductor as regards non-issuance of tickets. It is high time that the petitioner-Corporation considers the issuance of tickets by other modes like smart cards and collection of fares by using debit cards. The Managing Director of the petitioner-Corporation is directed to consider the same and install necessary equipments in all buses so as to dispense with the tickets by using modern modes by collecting money by using debit cards/credit cards/smart cards by taking the assistance of the Principal Secretary, e-Governance Department.

¶43

¶44

WP No. 16082 of 2012

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to bring the above order to the notice of the Managing Director of KSRTC for doing needful.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, the petition stands

¶47

dismissed .

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

KVK

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M C Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri M C Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sayeed Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sheshadri K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Kishanlal. B. Kukreja Vs State of Karnataka by

The Managing Director Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Managing Director Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Managing Director Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner