Dismissed

Veerabasappa Kupasad v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023WP/10762/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that rejected a workman's claim in a minor disciplinary penalty case. The court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify a minor penalty under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, as managerial decisions on minor penalties are absolute.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Industrial Tribunal award affirmed.

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37455 WP No. 10762 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10762 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

VEERABASAPPA KUPASAD S/O LATE SANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A SAKINA SAVADI AT AND POST, RONA TALUK, GADAG DISTRICT - 582 209.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:37455 WP No. 10762 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶19

The petitioner was working as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for non-issuance of tickets and non-collection of requisite fare from two passengers. Hence, he was issued with Articles of charge. The petitioner replied to the same. An inquiry officer was appointed and after conducting a detailed inquiry, the petitioner was imposed with a minor penalty.

¶20

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.152/2015. The Tribunal vide award dated:27.02.2023 rejected the claim statement. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:37455 WP No. 10762 of 2023

¶24

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶25

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner in presenting his arguments submits that three charges were framed against the petitioner. In the inquiry, one charge was proved and two charges were not proved. Hence, the Tribunal has erred in confirming the order of punishment and consequently erred in rejecting the claim statement.

¶26

By way of reply to this contention, learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., justified the award of the Industrial Tribunal. He argued by saying that the findings of the inquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority and a minor penalty was imposed on the petitioner. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.

¶27

The contention about the charges are noted with utmost care.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the first charge is about nonissuance of tickets and non-collection of the requisite fare. The same was proved before the inquiry officer in the inquiry proceedings. Taking note of the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty by withholding one ensuing annual

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:37455 WP No. 10762 of 2023

¶31

increment of the workman with cumulative effect. The Industrial Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and justified in affirming the order of punishment and rejected the claim statement.

¶32

Furthermore, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to modify the minor penalty. The managerial decision imposing a minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified in the exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence, the Industrial Tribunal is justified in rejecting the claim statement. I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Veerabasappa Kupasad v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veerabasappa Kupasad v. the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

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

P. Murthy Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.G.Harish

Mr.Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri Ravindranath Mane S/O Late J Athmaram Mane Since Deceased by His Lrs Smt Devika Bai Vs Smt Meera Satyananda Nikam