Dismissed

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad v. the Management of Nwkrtc

Karnataka HC30 May 2023WP/105960/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Karnataka High Court considered a writ petition challenging an award by the Labour Court that dismissed a bus conductor from service for pilferage. The court upheld the award, finding misconduct proved despite procedural objections and noting the petitioner's history of similar offenses.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition praying to quash the Labour Court award dismissing the petitioner from service was dismissed.

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 105960 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. BASAVARAJ S/O BHOJAPPA KADAGAD AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: NIL, AT & POST: GODACHI-591114, TQ: RAMDURG, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M S HARAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR RAKESH Location: HighCourt of S Karnataka, HARIHAR DharwadDate: 2023.06.03 11:22:16 +0530

¶14

THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC, BELAGAVI DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY DIVISIONAL CONTRLLER, N.W.K.R.T.C., BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. PRASHANT S HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE AWARD PASSED N K.I.D NO.9/2018 DATED 11.07.2018 ON THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXUE-F & ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The respondent – Corporation has preferred the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the award passed in proceedings bearing KID No.9/2018 dated 11.07.2018 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Belagavi vide Annexure – F.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶24

On 08.10.2016, while the petitioner was discharging his duty in the bus bearing No.KA-22/F-1951 enroute to Ramdurg from Pune, the said bus was checked by the checking squad of the respondent – Corporation and it was found that the petitioner had not issued tickets to four passengers who were traveling in the said bus. On the basis of the report received from the checking squad, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner and after receiving a reply from him, an enquiry was held against the petitioner by the respondent – Corporation. The enquiry officer had submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner was proved and based on the same, the respondent on 28.12.2017 had passed an order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶27

Challenging the said order, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, Belagavi raising a dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1947). In the said proceedings, the Labour Court having held that the enquiry held against the petitioner by the Corporation was conducted in a fair and proper manner, further proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner on merits and by the impugned award had dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent – Corporation had not examined the passengers who were allegedly travelling without tickets and therefore, the charge against the petitioner was not proved. He also submits that, the cash available with the petitioner was also not checked. He submits that the order of punishment compared to the charges levelled against the petitioner is disproportionate and therefore, the Labour Court ought to have exercised its power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947 and should have reduced the punishment.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a history sheeter and there were as many as 23 cases of pilferage against him. He submits that the petitioner was earlier dismissed by the respondent – Corporation on the charges of pilferage and the said order was subsequently modified by the Labour Court and thereby the petitioner was reinstated. He submits that since the charges against the petitioner are grave, the management was justified in passing an order of dismissal against him. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

In the disciplinary enquiry that was held against the petitioner, the charges of pilferage was proved against him and considering the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority / management has passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. It is the said order, which was questioned by the petitioner before the Labour Court. The issue No.1 framed by the Labour Court was answered in the affirmative and it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper. Thereafter, the Labour Court has proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. The material on record would go to show

¶33

¶34

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶35

that the charge levelled against the petitioner was that he had not issued tickets to four passengers who were travelling in the bus, though he had collected the fare amount of Rs.69/- each from them. Though these allegations were denied by the petitioner, during the course of cross-examination, he has admitted that the said passengers were proceeding from Belagavi to Nippani and he had received the fare amount of Rs.276/- from the said passengers. He also has admitted that the said passengers had paid fine amount of Rs.2,000/- to the checking staff. The penalty receipt was issued to the said passengers and the offence memo was served on the petitioner and he has signed on the same and also the penalty receipt. Therefore, it is very clear that the petitioner had an intention to pilferage the revenue of the Corporation.

¶36

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has made a

¶37

submission that the petitioner is a history sheeter and as many as 23 cases of similar nature were registered against him. He has also made a submission that the petitioner was dismissed from service on an earlier occasion on the charges of pilferage

¶38

and subsequently he was reinstated after the order of punishment was modified by the Labour Court. These

¶39

¶40

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶41

submission by the learned counsel for the respondent is not seriously disputed by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶42

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.4537/2002 decided on 12.06.2003 in the case of The Managing Director of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Shivayananamath at para 10 has observed as follows:

¶43

“………. In fact, in the case of North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli and anr. Vs. S.S.Poleshi MANU/KA/0321/2000, referring the said decision of the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this court has held as under:

¶44

“In our opinion, keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the standard or extent of evidence which is required to be led in by the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the charge of non-issuance of tickets despite collection of fares from the passengers for prove misconduct pilferage and past history records of the respondent and nonexamination of passengers during the domestic enquiry or before the Labour Court in case the enquiry is found to be defective cannot be taken to be a ground for disproving the charge. Similarly, non-counting of cash available with the conductor as

¶45

¶46

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶47

well cannot be held to be of any relevance in relation to the said chare.”

¶48

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-examination of the passengers who were travelling without ticket and not counting the cash available with him does not merit consideration and the same is liable to be rejected.

¶49

It is trite that the Labour Court while exercising its power under Section 11A of the Act of 1947, after having held that the domestic enquiry was held in a fair and proper manner, can interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management in a case of proven charges only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the workman.

¶50

In the present case, undisputedly the petitioner is a history sheeter and as many as 23 cases of pilferage have been registered against him and in an earlier occasion, on the charges of pilferage he was dismissed from service and inspite of the same, the petitioner had continued his acts of misconduct. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the Labour Court after placing reliance on the various judgments

¶51

¶52

WP No. 105960 of 2019

¶53

passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, has rightly held that the management had proved the charge against the petitioner and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Management was justified in dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶54

I am of the considered view that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Belagavi does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which calls for interference by this Court.

¶55

I do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

Rsh/Ct:Bck List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad v. the Management of Nwkrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Basavaraj S/O. Bhojappa Kadagad v. the Management of Nwkrtc

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

The Management of Nwkrtc Vs Vittal F Bharamannavar

Ishwarappa Mahalingappa Kolhar Vs Director of Technical Education

M/S Palled Regency Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallasarjappa S/O Yellappa Omkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Rudrappa S/O Yadavappa Yadavannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Sudha W/O Late Gajanana Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka