The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that upheld a disciplinary punishment on a conductor. The Court held judicial review is limited when a domestic inquiry is fair and charges are proved.
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
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:39349 WP No. 31719 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.31719 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
K.N.VENKATESH S/O LATE NARASIMAHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT 4TH WARD, PRASHANTH NAGAR, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101.
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY.T., 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 PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He was issued with Articles of charge alleging that he had failed to issue tickets of Rs.6/(Rupees Six only) denomination to a group of twenty passengers traveling from Bagepalli to Koduru Thopu. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings. After a detailed inquiry, the inquiry officer held that the charges are proved. Hence, he was visited with an order of punishment on 21.03.2007 and his basic pay was reduced to minimum basic pay attached to the post of the Conductor. He raised a dispute and the same was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.245/2009. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:14.12.2017 rejected the Reference. It is this award that is called into question in this
NC: 2023:KHC:39349 WP No. 31719 of 2018
Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under a disciplinary proceedings for an act of misconduct and he was visited with an order of punishment back in the year 2007.
NC: 2023:KHC:39349 WP No. 31719 of 2018
in imposing the penalty. Accordingly, he submits that the Writ Petition may be allowed and the award may be set-aside.
In reply, learned counsel Sri.Hareesh Bhandary.T., appearing on behalf of the Corporation justified the award of the Tribunal. He argued by saying that the petitioner has history of seventy-two cases. He also argued by saying that the petitioner admitted the charges before the Inquiry officer. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC:39349 WP No. 31719 of 2018
conducted by the Corporation is fair and proper, the judicial review in interfering with the award of the Tribunal is limited. In my opinion, the award of the Tribunal is just and proper. For
the reasons stated above, I find no grounds to interfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal. The Writ Petition is devoid
of merits and it is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court is justified in interfering with the award of the Industrial Tribunal rejecting the reference under Section 10A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.N.Venkatesh
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
