Partly allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Bharatesh Yatagiri

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2023WP/36769/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench dismissed a writ petition by BMTC against a reinstatement order while partly allowing the workman's petition, modifying the Labour Court award to withhold only two annual increments instead of three due to lack of proven loss for specific charges.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award is modified to withhold only two annual increments with cumulative effect upon reinstatement; the workman is not entitled to these three increments.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Bharatesh… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.36769 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.32311 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

IN W.P. NO.36769 OF 2016:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BANGALORE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (BMTC) WEST DIVISION, KENGERI BUS STAND, BANGALORE-560 060 HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, B.M.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI BHARATESH YATAGIRI S/O. BHEEMARAYA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.20/3, I MAIN ROAD, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDRE ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D. NO.45/2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶21

IN W.P. NO.32311 OF 2016:

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

BHARATESH YATAGIRI S/O. BHEEMARAYA, AGED 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.20/3, I MAIN, MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER BMTC, WEST DIVISION, KENGERI BUS STAND, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶28

…RESPONDENT

¶29

(BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 28.03.2016 PASSED IN I.D. NO.45/2015 BY THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION IN SO FAR AS ITS RELATES TO DENIAL OF BACK WAGES, CONSEQUENTIAL

¶31

3 - WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶32

BENEFITS AND WITHHOLDING OF THREE INCREMENTS PERMANENTLY AND ETC.

¶33

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

Since the challenge in these petitions is to the award dated 28.03.2016 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D.No.45/2015, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

¶36

The petitioner workman while working as conductor

¶37

in the Corporation was issued with the Articles of Charges alleging that on 28.10.2013 that the bus in which the workman was discharging his duty as Conductor, when it reached at Kottigepalya, II stage failed to mention the details of the tickets issued in the way bill. On account of which, the workman has not mentioned the details of the tickets issued to the passenger to the previous stage i.e., from Stage I to Stage II and also one ticket for Rs.12 was not issued to one passenger and not collected the fair for one passenger who was travelling from Summanahalli to Sumkadakatte i.e., stage I to Stage II. The

¶38

¶39

WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶40

petitioner replied to the article of charges, and the corporation is not satisfied with the reply, conducted an enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charge against the workman was proved.

¶41

The Disciplinary Authority after issuing second show cause notice and examining the material on record dismissed the workman from service. Against which the workman raised a dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶42

The workman before the Labour Court admits that

¶43

the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper and thereafter the workman examined himself as WW1 and marked documents at Ex.W1 to W6 and the Corporation examined one witness as MW1 and marked documents at Ex.M1 and M18. The Labour Court after examining the materials set aside the dismissal order and directed the Corporation to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, the workman as well as the Corporation are before this court.

¶44

WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶45

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶47

The Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration

¶48

Exs.M1 and M2 has recorded a finding that the charge against the Workman was proved and the Labour Court after examining the records has concurred with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. However, the non-mentioning of the tickets issued to the passenger in the previous stage has not caused any loss to the Corporation. The charge No.1 against the Workman is that he has not mentioned the details of the tickets issued to the passenger in previous stage in the way bill. However, no material is placed to substantiate that the nonmentioning of details in the way bill has caused loss to the Corporation.

¶49

Whereas, in respect of charge No.2, Exs.M1 and M2

¶50

clearly indicates that the Workman had not issued one ticket to the passenger of the denomination of Rs.12.

¶51

In view of the above, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court to the extent of withholding three annual increments instead of withholding two annual increments is not sustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶52

¶53

WP No. 36769 of 2016 C/W WP No. 32311 of 2016

¶54

ORDER

¶55

W.P.No.36769/2016 is hereby dismissed

¶56

and W.P.No.32311/2016 is allowed-in-part .

¶57

The impugned award dated 28.03.2016 passed by the Court of III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.45/2015 is modified

¶58

to the extent that the Workman is entitled for reinstatement into service without backwages and consequential benefits but with continuity of service by withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

KLY/VMB

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Bharatesh Yatagiri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri Bharatesh Yatagiri

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

Goudra Krishanappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Prashanth K. M. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Lakkanna. D. R. Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Shivaraj B S Vs the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate

Smt. Bhagyashree P.N. Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri. P.N. Sridhar, Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority