The High Court of Karnataka refused to interfere with the Industrial Tribunal's award rejecting a disciplinary reference against a KSRTC conductor. The Court held the writ petition was devoid of merits as the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim with evidence before the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:38845 WP No. 28962 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.28962 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.M.S.NARAYANASWAMY S/O SRI.SRIKANTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT. NO. LIG-198, 3RD STAGE, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSORE - 570 023.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA KULKARINI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573 201.
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt.Manjula Kulkarni., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for the petitioner has appeared through video conferencing and Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the respondent has appeared in person.
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He came under a disciplinary inquiry for an act of misconduct. After a detailed inquiry, he was visited with punishment order on 20.11.2003 reducing his pay by one incremental stage permanently. He raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal Mysore in Ref No.12/2005. The Industrial Tribunal vide Award dated:02.01.2012 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.
respondent have urged several contentions.
vehemently contended that the rejection of the reference is untenable. She argued by saying that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the issue involved in the matter and thus erred in rejecting the reference.
In reply, Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation contends that the petitioner has not furnished documents to prove his case before the Industrial Tribunal. On the contrary, the Management - Corporation has furnished as many as fifty- five documents. Taking note of the material on record, the Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference. Learned counsel submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.
sufficiently. Suffice it to note that the delinquent came under a disciplinary proceedings for an act of misconduct. He was
visited with a minor penalty. The issue revolves around the misconduct. It is pivotal to note that except for saying that the corporation is not justified in passing an order of punishment, and filing the claim statement, the petitioner has not furnished documents to prove his claim. He has failed to substantiate his claim before the Tribunal. A perusal of the award would reveal that the Tribunal extenso referred to the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the charges are held to be proved and declined to set aside the punishment order. In my view, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference. Furthermore when the charges are held to be proved and the Tribunal has rightly exercised the power, the judicial review by this court is very much limited. No grounds are made out to interfere with the Award passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
Sd/JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in rejecting the reference for adjudication regarding the petitioner's misconduct.
Whether the Writ Petition raising disputes of law and fact against the Tribunal's award has merit for judicial review.
Whether the petitioner failed to furnish documents to substantiate his claim before the Industrial Tribunal.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M.S. Narayanaswamy
The Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Hassan Division
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
