Dismissed

K Mahadevaiah v. Managing Director

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2023WP/23665/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an Industrial Tribunal award rejecting his reference. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal correctly rejected the reference based on the conclusion that the misconductbenefit of doubt applied and found no reason to interfere, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed as it was devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

K Mahadevaiah Vs Managing Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37832 WP No. 23665 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.23665 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE KARIYAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, DRIVER, BADGE NO.3492, KUVEMPUNAGARA DEPOT, KSRTC, MYSURU URBAN DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT.AISHWARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.ANANYA Y.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, URBAN DIVISION, BANNIMANTAPA, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:37832 WP No. 23665 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.Aishwarya., learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Ananya.Y.V., for the petitioner and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for respondents have appeared in person.

¶22

The petitioner was appointed as a temporary driver in the establishment of the Corporation in the year 1991. His services were regularized as a permanent driver in the year 2000. On 23.05.2004, he was driving the bus bearing No. KA09-F-3045 plying on the route from Mysuru to Bengaluru, when the bus came near RMC Yard, Ramanagara, the bus hit a pedestrian who was crossing the road and the pedestrian died. The petitioner came under disciplinary proceedings. After a detailed inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his findings. The disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment on 31.08.2012.

¶23

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was dismissed on 27.12.2012. As things stood thus, the petitioner raised a dispute in the year 2015 before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37832 WP No. 23665 of 2018

¶25

No.98/2015. The Industrial Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated 30.11.2017 rejected the reference. 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.

¶26

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

¶27

Learned counsel Smt.Aishwarya., in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that the Industrial Tribunal has erroneously proceeded to reject the reference based on Ex.M14 the Accident Sketch. She argued by saying that the petitioner was driving the bus slowly. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked in the inquiry proceedings and by the Industrial Tribunal. Hence, she submits that the award is liable to be set aside.

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37832 WP No. 23665 of 2018

¶29

In reply, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the Industrial Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and rightly rejected the reference. She argued by saying that the petitioner has not made any grounds to interfere with the Award of the Tribunal. Accordingly, she prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶30

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

¶31

The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was driving the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Mysuru to Bengaluru. It is alleged that the driver was driving in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The pedestrian who was crossing the road died. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that he was acquitted in the criminal proceedings, hence the order of punishment is bad in law. Before this Court also, he has adhered to the said contention. It is pivotal to note that the Industrial Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that in the criminal case, the matter will be

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:37832 WP No. 23665 of 2018

¶34

decided based on the benefit of the doubt. In my view, the conclusion of the Tribunal is just and proper. Furthermore, in the adjudication of labor disputes, the misconduct of the delinquent plays a prominent role. Taking note of the material on record, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference. I find no reason to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

K Mahadevaiah v. Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Mahadevaiah v. Managing Director

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

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Veerabasappa Kupasad Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri. H. C. Lokesh Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Yashwanth G E

G Mahadevamma Vs the Chief Traffic Manager