Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.R. Krishna Kumar

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2023WP/3093/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 3093 of 2020 [L-KSRTC], the High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition by the KSRTC. The Court quashed an award by the Industrial Tribunal that set aside a punishment order due to negligent driving by a bus driver following a road accident.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 30.03.2019 of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.24/2017 is quashed and set aside.

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.3093 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR DRIVER BADGE NO.3082, ADULT, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION, NO.47/A, POST OFFICE ROAD, BANNIMANTAP, MYSORE - 570 015.

¶13

(RESPONDENT - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

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

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The notice to the respondent was ordered on 07.02.2020. The office note depicts that the respondent is served. The respondent has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶22

2. The brief facts are these:

¶23

The respondent was appointed as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. On 31.05.2011, he was on duty in the bus that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Bengaluru to Mysuru. He caused an accident at Kalasthawadi by hitting the bus against a Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-5940, which was ahead of the bus. As a result of which the passengers sustained injuries and the front portion of the bus was extensively damaged in the accident. Hence, he was issued with Articles of charge alleging rash and negligent driving. The respondent submitted his reply to the Articles of charge denying the charges. The respondent was subjected to disciplinary inquiry proceedings as his reply was

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶25

not satisfactory. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed an order of punishment on 18.01.2013, by reducing his basic pay by one stage with cumulative effect.

¶26

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised the dispute, which was referred to the adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.24/2017. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated:30.03.2019 set-aside the order of punishment. It is this Award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶30

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct and was visited with an order of punishment.

¶31

Suffice it to note that the accident in question occurred at 15.30 hours, which means that the respondent had a neat and clear view of the road ahead of him. The place of the accident as per the sketch reflects that it was a straight road, there was a sign board stating that the road humps ahead. The sketch is marked as Ex.M.9. It is evident that the lorry was slowed down near the road humps. It is not in dispute that the lorry was ahead of the bus, hence the respondent ought to have been more careful while driving the bus and he was expected to maintain a safe distance. The manner in which the accident has occurred would establish that the respondent was negligent in driving.

¶32

The defense of the respondent was that the break system of the bus was weak and the steering of the bus was wobbling because the tires were torn out. The defense cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the cause of the accident

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶35

was not on account of the mechanical failure of any of the vehicles involved in the accident. Hence, the interference with the order of punishment is erroneous and unjust.

¶36

Furthermore, the respondent being a driver is required to follow road Regulations. Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 states that "the driver of a Motor Vehicle moving behind another Vehicle to keep safe distance from that other Vehicle to avoid collision if the Vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop". In the present case, the occurrence of the accident would clearly establish that the respondent had not maintained safe distance. If he had maintained the safe distance, the accident would not have happened. Not maintaining safe distance depicts that the respondent was negligent in driving, which caused the accident. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has overlooked the aspect regarding safe driving and maintaining a safe distance and has erroneously proceeded to set-aside the order of punishment. This is unsustainable. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:40457 WP No. 3093 of 2020

¶39

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award

¶40

dated:30.03.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore in Reference No.24/2017 vide Annexure-D is quashed.

¶41

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

TKN/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.R. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S.R. Krishna Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs Amaresha

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Shek Noorulla

M/S Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Vs the Secretary

M/S Mcf Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Kunder

Sri Mohan Rao Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner