Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri. M. Lakshmikantha

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2023WP/22042/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru Modified the Labour Court's award regarding a bus workman's dismissal. The Court held that while a one-ticket re-issuance was proven, the penalty of three annual increments was excessive. It increased the deduction to four annual increments and modified the order accordingly. (Para 12, 65)

What did the court decide?

The order of the Labour Court was modified to reduce the penalty from deduction of three annual increments to deduction of four annual increments.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. M… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 22042 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER B.M.T.C., CENTRAL DIVISION, KEMPEGOWDA BUS STAND, SUBHASHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 009,

¶9

HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B.S. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJEEV B L., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. M. LAKSHMIKANTHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. SRI. R. B. K. MURTHY, R/O. NO. 8-A, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SHABARI NAGAR, BAIREGOWDA LAYOUT, BYATARAYANAPURA, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. L SHEKAR ., ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU PERTAINING TO ID NO.27/2016 WHICH HAS

¶18

¶19

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶20

CULMINATED IN ITS AWARD DATED.14.09.2018, PRODUCED AT ANNX-C AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner-the Road Transport Corporation is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a. Call for records of the proceedings of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru pertaining to ID No.27/2016 which has culminated in its award dated.14.09.2018, produced at Annexure-C.

¶25

b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the award dated 14.09.2018 passed by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru in ID No.27/2016, vide Annexure-C.

¶26

c. Grant such other reliefs that may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶27

The Respondent-workman was employed as drivercum-conductor under the petitioner corporation-the Road Transport Corporation. While discharging his duties in bus plying in-route 500KE/9 from the Banashankari bus stop to ITPL, on 17.6.2015 at about 16.40 hours, the checking officers of the Road Transport Corporation subjected the said bus for

¶28

3 - WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶29

checking at Ragigudda Stage and detected certain irregularities in as much as the workman had reissued 2 old tickets of Rs.60/- each which were not concerned with the waybill abstract, as also re-issued 2 old tickets of Rs.50/- to the passengers traveling from Banashankari to Agara which is not concerned with the way bill abstract and re-issued 1 ticket of Rs.45/- to 1 passenger traveling from Banashakari to Sarjapura.

¶30

On detecting such irregularities, the checking officials recorded the statement of passengers and collected the re-issued tickets signed by respondent at the spot without any protest and the checking officials seized two unpunched tickets aforementioned as also way bill and prepared detailed charge memo at the spot and served the same on the respondent.

¶31

The Disciplinary Authority issued an article of charges to which the workman submitted his reply. The

¶32

¶33

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶34

Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the said reply had initiated the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer held the charges leveled against the workman, the Disciplinary Authority accepting the finding of the enquiry officer issued 2^nd showcause notice which was replied to by the workman and the Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the 92 earlier occasions of default dismissed the workman from the service vide order dated

¶35

29.7.2016.

¶36

Aggrieved by the said order of the dismissal, the workman filed a claim petition under section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru which came to be registered as I.D. No.27/2016. The Labour Court after going through the evidence on record directed reinstatement of the workman into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. For the purpose of terminal benefits had directed the Road Transport

¶37

¶38

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶39

Corporation to deduct three annual increments of the workman with immediate effect.

¶40

It is aggrieved by the same the Road Transport Corporation is before this Court contending that the reduction of three increments as the punishment imposed is not proper and that the Labour Court ought to have confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶41

Sri. B.S. Srinivas., learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation would submit that, there is clear and categorical admission made by the workman as regard the re-issuance of the tickets of Rs.45/- denomination, the said admission itself would be sufficient for dismissal of the workman. The Disciplinary Authority having taken into account the misconducts committed on as many as 92 occasions by the workman wherein minor penalties were imposed but in the cumulative effect this time

¶42

¶43

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶44

the Disciplinary authority had dismissed the

¶45

workman from service. He therefore submits that taking entire conduct of the workman into account the dismissal order was proper and correct which requires to be confirmed by the Labour Court.

¶46

Per contra Sri. L. Shekar., learned counsel appearing for the workman would submit that the Labour Court has categorically held finding that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and therefore requiring the corporation to establish the allegations made against the workman in the proceedings before the Labour Court. At the most, what was been established by the Road Transport Corporation is as regards as 1 ticket of Rs.45/-, when allegations which have been made against the workman was as regards 5 tickets and as such the Road Transport Corporation not having established as regards allegations in respect of 4 tickets. Hence, the order of dismissal was not proper and therefore

¶47

¶48

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶49

the Labour Court has rightly reduced the punishment from an order of dismissal to deduction of three annual increments. Hence, this Court ought not to interfere in any manner.

¶50

Heard Sri. B.S. Srinivas., learned counsel for then Road Transport Corporation and Sri. L. Shekar., learned counsel for workman.

¶51

The issue in the present matter is as regards the proportionately of punishment which has been imposed. The allegations made against the workman was that, he had re-issued 4 old tickets and issued 1 ticket which had already been accounted in another waybill. The Labour Court having come to a conclusion that, the Disciplinary Enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner, it was but required for the Road Transport Corporation to establish and prove its case. In the evidence which was placed on record before the Labour Court, it is not evidence

¶52

¶53

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶54

placed by the Road Transport Corporation but the admission made by the workman that there was a re-issuance of 1 ticket of Rs.45/- which led to the order passed by the Labour Court. The allegations made against the workman relating to re-issuance of 5 tickets which resulted in the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was not established, what remained before the Labour Court was the admission made by the workman as regards re-issuance of the 1 ticket of Rs.45/-. Though, the value of the ticket has no bearing there is an admission made by the workman that there was a re-issuance of 1 ticket which is not permissible.

¶55

The fact that there is an admission, in my considered opinion would have serious impact on the conduct of the workman and violations committed by him. It is immaterial whether all 5 allegations made against the workman was proved or not, so long as one misconduct is proved, the same would require

¶56

¶57

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶58

punishment to be imposed. In the present matter the punishment imposed by the Labour Court has not been challenged by the workman but challenged by the Road Transport Corporation on the ground that the dismissal order had to be confirmed.

¶59

Taking into account the above conspectus of facts, the workman having re-issued of 1 ticket, I am of the considered opinion that, the punishment which has to be imposed would have to be proportionate to the misconduct. In furtherance thereof I am of the considered opinion that, the deduction of 3 annual increments ordered by Labour Court is not proportionate and same would have to be increased to 4 annual increments. As such I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶62

ii. The order passed by the Labour Court dated 14.09.2018 in ID No.27/2016 is modified to

¶63

10 -

¶64

WP No. 22042 of 2019

¶65

only the extent as regards deduction of annual increments which stands modified to four

¶66

annual increments.

¶67

iii. Needless to say, the rest of the award remains

undisturbed.

Sd/JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

The Divisional Controller v. Sri. M. Lakshmikantha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri. M. Lakshmikantha

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 Divisional Controller Vs Sri N Narayanaswamy

Sri v J Denny Vs M/S Federal Mogul Goetze

Sri. Basavaraju Vs the Divisional Controller

Smt. Geetha Devi R Vs the Bangalore Development Authority

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sri M Siddeshwarappa

Sri Rahmathulla Khan Vs the Divisional Controller &