Dismissed

Manjunath v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging an industrial dispute award dismissing the petitioner for negligence. The Divisional Controller-KSRTC alleged the petitioner failed to collect fare of Rs.775/-. The lower court reinstated him, denied back wages, and reduced punishment to withholding increments. The High Court found no illegality in the award and dismissed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; impugned award upholding reinstatement without back wages but withholding increments.

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 356 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22351 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 356 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 22351 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 356 OF 2023:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MANJUNATH S/O ANJANAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/AT ARUR VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 104.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPUR-562 104.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND ALSO THE AWARD DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR IN I.D. 29/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE- B TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO REDUCTION TO THREE ANNUAL INCREMENTS WITH CUMULATIVE EFFECT AND DENIAL OF BACK WAGES IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶19

¶20

WP No. 356 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22351 of 2021

¶21

IN WRIT PETITION NO. 22351 OF 2021:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C. CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION CHIKKABLLAPURA HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027.

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SRI MANJUNATH S/O ANJANAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O ARUR VILLAGE AND POST CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 102.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 16.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA IN ID NO.29/2017, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

These petitions are filed challenging the award dated 3.5.2019 passed by the Prl. District Judge, Chickkaballapura in I.D.No.29/2017, by which, the claim petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was partly allowed by setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the

¶34

¶35

WP No. 356 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22351 of 2021

¶36

Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service and without back wages and by withholding 3 annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶37

The workman was charged alleging that when he was working as Driver-cum conductor in the PetitionerCorporation had not issued ticket and had not collected the fare from one passenger in the denomination of Rs.775/-. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report stating that the charge against the workman was proved, and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman from service, against which he filed the claim petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶38

The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be fair and proper, and thereafter the workman, in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW.1, and marked documents at Exs.P1 to P10, and on the other hand, the Corporation examined one witness as RW.1 and marked documents as Exs.R1 to R23.

¶39

The learned Judge after examining the evidence on record held that the charge levelled against the workman was proved, however, by invoking Section 11-A of the I.D. Act, 1947 held that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charge and accordingly imposed lesser punishment.

¶40

¶41

WP No. 356 of 2023 C/W WP No. 22351 of 2021

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶43

The charge leveled against the workman was proved, however, the learned Judge, taking into account that there was no misappropriation of fund by the workman and there was no pecuniary loss to the Corporation by not issuing ticket, held that it was the case of negligence on the part of workman and in such a case, punishment of dismissal of the workman was disproportionate to the guilt of the workman.

¶44

The workman is aged about 56 years and left with four years of service. I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the learned District Judge.

¶45

Accordingly, the petitions stand dismissed.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

Manjunath v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunath v. the Divisional Controller

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

Sri K N Nagaraj Vs Sri S Padhmanabhan

Wonderla Karmika Sangha Vs the Management

Sri G Nagaraja Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri R H Siddammanavar

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri T C Venkatagiriyappa