The High Court set aside a Labour Court Award that reinstated a bus driver dismissed for consuming alcohol while on duty and driving in an intoxicated manner. The Court confirmed the dismissal and upheld the denial of gratuity.
Writ of Certiorari qusashed the Labour Court Award; dismissal order and denial of gratuity confirmed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.35743 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 027. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. N.B.SUNILA KUMARA S/O SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA N.B., AGE: MAJOR, R/O NADIGERA HOUSE, NALAKUNDA POST, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 571 111.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.MAHADEVASWAMY., ADVOCATE)
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 ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:45990 WP No. 35743 of 2019
ORDER
Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.Mahadeva Swamy., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.
2. The brief facts are these:
The respondent was working as a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. While he was working at Nelamangala Depot, on 10.07.2017, he was deputed to work on route No.30/31 i.e., from City Market to Akkirampura in Bus bearing Registration No.KA-40-F-617. On 11.07.2017, at about 16:10 hours, the respondent came back to the Depot without completing his scheduled route. The Traffic Section Supervisor, Assistant Works Superintendent and the Security Staff subjected the respondent for breath analyzer test to check consumption of alcohol. The display screen of the breath analyzer machine showed 246mg/ 100ml (BAC) and thus it was confirmed that the respondent has consumed alcohol while on duty. Further, under the influence of alcohol, the respondent used filthy language before the Corporation officials. He had failed to complete the route entrusted to him, as a result of
which the said route operation was cancelled, which caused revenue loss to the petitioner Corporation and also inconvenience to the passengers. In this regard, the Depot Manager submitted a report on 14.07.2017 to the Disciplinary Authority along with relevant documents for taking further action in the matter. Based on that report, the Disciplinary Authority placed the respondent under suspension on 17.07.2017 and he was issued with articles of charge and he replied for the same. Not being satisfied with the reply of the respondent and in view of the seriousness in the charges, the disciplinary authority initiated an inquiry against the respondent to find out the truth of the charges leveled against him and in this regard, appointed an inquiry officer by an order dated:31.07.2017. The respondent actively participated in the inquiry and took assistance of a co-worker. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the respondent is guilty of the charges leveled against him. Pursuant to the receipt of the inquiry findings, the disciplinary authority served a copy of the inquiry findings along with a show cause notice on 02.02.2018 and the respondent replied to the same. The
disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent, went through the records and accepted the findings of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, on an independent assessment of the facts, circumstances and evidence on record and also taking into consideration the past history of the respondent, wherein he was found involved in three cases related to consumption of alcohol while on duty, held that the respondent was guilty of the charges and the Corporation dismissed the respondent from service on 12.04.2018 with immediate effect; treated the suspension period from 17.07.2017 to 21.12.2017 as not on duty and held that the respondent is not entitled for gratuity as per Section 2A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and for any monetary benefits for that period.
Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent filed a Claim Petition under Section 2A R/w Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.25/2018. Pursuant to receipt of the Court notice, the Corporation filed their counter statement denying the claim of the respondent. The Labour Court held that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The
Labour Court vide order dated:02.02.2019, partly allowed the claim petition and set-aside the dismissal order and directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent to his original post with 25% of backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits and also to treat the suspension period as on duty. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:45990 WP No. 35743 of 2019
NC: 2023:KHC:45990 WP No. 35743 of 2019
Counsel further submits that when the workman was working at Depot No.6 under Bengaluru Central Division, he got involved in another case of consuming alcohol while on duty and in this regard, he was again dismissed from service on 22.12.2020 and accordingly, the Corporation has filed an application for approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D Act. Counsel therefore, submits that a memo has been filed furnishing the copy of order of dismissal and the same may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.
Submission is noted. Memo along with the copy of dismissal order is placed on record. A perusal of the same would reveal that, the respondent got involved in another case of consuming alcohol while on duty and he was dismissed from service on 22.12.2020. Suffice it to note that the Corporation filed an application for approval under Section 33 (2) (b) of the I.D Act before the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Serial Application No.427/2020. The Industrial Tribunal vide order dated:23.05.2022 has allowed the application and given approval.
NC: 2023:KHC:45990 WP No. 35743 of 2019
The conduct of the respondent depicts that he is not interested in discharging the duties diligently. I may venture to say that such an employee does not deserve any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. For the reasons stated above, the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside.
9. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed.
In view of confirmation of the order of dismissal, the interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and
pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Court Award setting aside the dismissal of a driver for drunkenness on duty requires interference.
Whether the employee is entitled to gratuity for the suspension period treated as not on duty.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
N.B.Sunila Kumara
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
