Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri H S Nath

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2023WP/17585/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed an Industrial Tribunal award that set aside a reduction in basic pay penalty. The Court held that tribunals lack jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to modify minor penalties and that guilt alone mandates punishment regardless of an apology.

What did the court decide?

The Industrial Tribunal award dated 29.06.2016 was quashed and the order of reducing basic pay by one stage dated 20.09.2010 was confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.17585 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, MYSORE - 570 001. NOW RERPESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, SARIGE SADANA, BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

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

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI H.S.NATH ACCOUNTS ASSISTANT (RETD.), AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE VICE PRESIDENT, KSRTC EMPLOYEES UNION-INTUC, NO.460, 15^TH CROSS, G-BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR, MYSORE - 570 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(SERVED THROUGH HAND-SUMMONS AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶20

appeared in person.

¶21

Emergent notice to the respondent was ordered on 08.06.2017. A perusal of the office note depicts that notice to respondent is served through hand summons. The respondent received the hand summons. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶22

3. The brief facts are these:

¶23

The respondent - H.S.Nath was working as a Assistant Accountant in the establishment of the Corporation at Chamarajanagar Division. The respondent was issued with Articles of charge seeking explanation for the misconduct committed by him as he was negligent while discharging his duty as an Assistant Accountant and without verifying the

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶25

accounts and reconciliation statement, he had certified that the accounts are proper and correct.

¶26

A detailed inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The punishment order was passed on 20.09.2010 reducing the basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect and the same was served on the respondent. The punishment imposed was also given effect to immediately. The respondent kept quiet and did not even challenge the same.

¶27

It is stated that on the earlier occasion, he was dismissed from services of the Corporation on 25.10.2010 for another proved misconduct and the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and thereby, set-aside the order of dismissal. He was once again dismissed from services of the Corporation by an order dated:14.10.2011 for the proved misconduct. The termination benefits were also calculated and paid to him immediately. It is said that the respondent has not challenged the order of dismissal.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶29

Strangely, after accepting the punishment order dated:20.09.2010 and after accepting the termination benefits calculated subsequent to imposing punishment, after a lapse of four years from the date of punishment order dated 20.09.2010, subsequent to his dismissal from service on 14.10.2011, he questioned the order of punishment before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysuru in Reference No.133/2014. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:29.06.2016 set-aside the order of punishment and ordered that the respondent is entitled for all the withheld benefits in respect of the punishment order. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ paper with utmost care.

¶31

The point that requires consideration is whether the Industrial Tribunal is justified in modifying a minor punishment.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶33

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry for the act of misconduct. The same was

¶34

proved before the inquiry officer in the inquiry proceedings. Taking note of the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty by reducing the basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect on 20.09.2010. Suffice it to note that the workman admitted the charges and he requested the Corporation not to proceed further in the inquiry and he has also requested the inquiry officer to close the inquiry vide letter dated:25.05.2007. The inquiry officer closed the inquiry proceedings based on the voluntary statement made by the respondent and submitted his report holding that the charges are proved. The Tribunal took note of the same, however, erroneously proceeded to interfere with the managerial decision of imposing a minor penalty on the ground that the workman

¶35

had apologized in respect of the mistake. Therefore, the mistake was not intentional one. The Tribunal also observed that merely the workman is found guilty, it is not sufficient to punish him. This is unsustainable in law. The reason is

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶37

apparent. What is required to be considered is the acceptance of the guilt by the workman and not tenderance of the apology. Therefore, the conclusion that the mistake is not intentional is unsustainable in law.

¶38

Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in modifying the imposition of a minor penalty. This modification is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify a minor penalty. It should have been seen that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it could not have been pressed into service in respect of a minor penalty. The managerial decision imposing a minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In any view of the matter, the award of the Industrial Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal is otherwise erroneous and unjust. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:43801 WP No. 17585 of 2017

¶41

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award

¶42

dated:29.06.2016 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysuru in Reference No.133/2014 vide Annexure-D is quashed. The order of punishment dated:20.09.2010 is confirmed.

¶43

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

TKN/RP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13.1

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri H S Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Sri H S Nath

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

The Chief Security & Vigilance Officer Vs Sri Hamsagiri C M

Sharan Desai Ms Usa Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs N Manjunath

Divisional Controller Vs Sri Mukunda H R

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri H S Nath

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner