Dismissed

Sri B T Shivananda v. the Management of Ksrtc

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/15729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed by an ex-employee of KSRTC convicted for misappropriating Provident Fund, challenged the Labour Court Award dismissing his claim. The High Court held the misconduct was proved and the punishment just, citing the limited scope of judicial review in Ratan Singh's case.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the Labour Court Award is dismissed.

Sri B T Shivananda Vs the Management of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.15729 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.T.SHIVANANDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O SRI. B.THIMMAPPA POOJARY, SHIVARATNA NILAYA, H.NO.924/3, URLANDY, PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC, MANGALORE DIVISION, BEJAI, MANGALURU - 575 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Sri.Naik.V.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶22

The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant

¶23

in the establishment of the Corporation in the Ballary Division in the year 1996. Upon satisfactory completion of period of probation, his services stood confirmed during the year 1998. The petitioner was transferred from Ballary Division to Mangaluru division during the year 2000. While he was working in the traffic section, he was placed under suspension pending inquiry on an allegation that while discharging duties as a Data Entry Operator in the Divisional Accounts Section and in particular Provident fund matters, he obtained provident fund advance amount from several employees and remitted the same to his personal bank account. On account of this act, the petitioner caused loss of Rs.3,89,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Nine Thousand only) towards Provident Fund amount and Rs.1,69,532/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two only) towards interest up to 17.05.2011 and thus, acted in a manner unbecoming of a

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶26

Corporation servant. Hence, Articles of charge was issued on 06.06.2011. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that the Provident Fund amount drawn by several employees has been credited to his account which amount he remitted to the Corporation on 13.05.2011 and 14.05.2011 obtaining receipts

¶27

in that behalf. As regards financial loss caused to the Corporation towards interest on the said amount he has remitted the interest amount of Rs.1,69,532/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Two only) to the Corporation. He therefore, requested that the matter be considered leniently and to drop all further proceedings in the matter. Being not satisfied with the explanation given by the delinquent, the inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and charges were held to be proved. The respondent was issued with show cause notice. The petitioner submitted detailed reply wherein he contended that the report of the inquiry officer is not based on legal evidence and it is perverse. However, the Disciplinary authority passed an order on 26.07.2012 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the order of the Corporation, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Dakshina

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶30

Kannada, Mangaluru in I.D.A.No.06/2012. The Labour Court held that the inquiry was fair and proper. On adjudication of the dispute, the Labour Court vide Award dated:29.12.2017 rejected the claim petition. 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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Sri.V.S.Naik., learned counsel appearing on behalf

¶33

of the petitioner in presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the rejection of the claim petition is erroneous and unsustainable in law. He argued by saying that the Labour Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 11A of the I.D Act, taking into account the length of service of sixteen years which was rendered by the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Labour Court has failed to discharge its powers vested under Section 11A of the I.D Act and erroneously rejected the application.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶35

By way of reply to the said contention, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation contended that the question of exercising discretionary powers under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, does not warrant on the facts and circumstances of the case. She argued by saying that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record, held that the gravity of the misconduct was proved. Hence, the Labour Court is justified in rejecting the petition. Hence, the contention about exercising discretionary power under Section 11A of the I.D Act does not arise for consideration.

¶36

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶37

The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. This is an interesting case of an employee who misappropriated the Provident Fund amount. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee in the Corporation. While he was in the Accounts Section, in particular in the Provident Fund matters, he had obtained Provident Fund advance amount from several employees and remitted the

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36198 WP No. 15729 of 2019

¶39

same to his personal bank account. Taking note of the said misconduct, he came under a disciplinary inquiry. The misconduct was held to be proved. The Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and taking note of the gravity of the misconduct concluded that the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner is just and proper. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the order of punishment.

¶40

Furthermore, the Apex Court settled the law back in the year 1977 in RATAN SINGH 's case that unless the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the charges, the scope of judicial review is limited. In the present case the inquiry officer and the Labour Court taking into consideration of the gravity of the misconduct, held that the misconduct has been proved. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

MRP

¶44

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Sri B T Shivananda v. the Management of Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B T Shivananda v. the Management of Ksrtc

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B S Puttegowda

Smt. Rudramma Vs the General Managers Office

Sri Shivanna S Vs the Work Manager

V Thathachar Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Vs B Chandrashekar

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri. P. a. Biradar