Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. C. Rajesh

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/41685/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed the Labour Court award reinstating a bus conductor dismissed for misappropriating fares. The court held the Labour Court erred in modifying the dismissal despite proved misconduct, confirming the original dismissal order.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 20.01.2018 of the Labour Court is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 23.12.2015 is confirmed.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.41685 OF 2019 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP.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

B.C.RAJESH S/O LATE CHELUVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O BEECHANAHALLI, HALEOORU POST, HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. H.K.KOMAL., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.P.RAMESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶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 FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.K.Komal., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.S.P.Ramesha., for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

2. The brief facts are these:

¶22

The respondent - B.C.Rajesh was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 08.11.2014, he was conducting the bus bearing No.F-564 that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Bengaluru to Kannanur. The bus came to be checked at Gonikoppa Stage and it was found that there were 31+0+0 passengers in the bus, he had committed the following irregularities while discharging his work. He had failed to issue tickets to two passengers traveling from Mysore to Gonikoppa and he had failed to collect Rs.90/- (Rupees Ninety only) each from them, thereby he had misappropriated the revenue of the Corporation to an extent of Rs.180/- (Rupees One Hundred and Eighty only). On the basis of report filed by the checking officials, the respondent was issued with Articles of charge on 02.12.2014. He was subjected to domestic inquiry. A detailed

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶24

inquiry was held by providing sufficient opportunity to the respondent to defend his case. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. He was issued with a second show cause notice on 17.04.2015 along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority on perusal of the history sheet of the workman found that he was involved in six cases including the present incident. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer, taking into consideration the grave misconduct of the workman coupled with the past history of five cases relating to the respondent, dismissed him from service vide order dated 23.12.2015.

¶25

The respondent questioned the order of punishment by filing a claim petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the I.D Act before the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.01/2016. The Corporation filed its counter statement resisting the claim petition filed by the workman. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court vide Award dated:20.01.2018 held that the order of dismissal is not

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶27

justified. Hence, directed reinstatement of the workman with 25% of backwages and denial of five increments with cumulative effect. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

The point that requires consideration is whether the

¶30

award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶31

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The charge made against the workman is that he had failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare from the passengers. The charge stood established and the Labour Court also concluded that the charge is proved. However, the Labour Court went ahead and modified the order of punishment. The respondent being a Conductor of the Corporation, should discharge his duties diligently and carefully. As a Conductor, his

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶34

only work is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid salary for this work.

¶35

Suffice it to note that the respondent was conducting the bus and he had failed to issue tickets to the passengers who were traveling from Mysore to Gonikoppa. A perusal of the award of the Labour Court reveals that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and concluded that the act of misconduct is proved and however, went ahead and concluded that the penalty of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand only) is collected from the passengers and no loss is caused to the Corporation. Hence, it concluded that the quantum of punishment is disproportionate. This is incorrect. Imposing penalty and collecting the same from the passengers is not the criteria. What is required to be considered is the act of misconduct. As already noted above, the respondent is a Driver Cum Conductor, on 08.11.2014, he was conducting the bus and he failed to discharge his duties. The only duty entrusted to him is to issue tickets and collect revenue for the Corporation. Hence, the levy of penalty on the ticketless passengers cannot be taken advantage by the respondent, much less by the Labour Court.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶38

Furthermore, the finding recorded by the Labour Court in Paragraph 12 that the charge has been framed against the respondent by the checking officials to reach their target is also untenable. Suffice it to note that the Corporation has given general instructions to the checking officials to check the bus and reaching the target cannot a base to hold that the order of punishment is disproportionate. The observation and the finding of the Labour Court to hold that the checking officials should have checked the cash with the Conductor is also unsustainable in law. The charge against the workman Conductor is non-collection of fare, therefore, counting of cash in his possession has no relevance to the charge alleged against him nor it would have been a basis to prove the charges leveled against the respondent. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the charge of non-issue of tickets and non-collection of fare amounts to pilferage, however termed the order of dismissal for this misconduct as harsh. This finding is erroneous.

¶39

Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the Labour Court has concluded that the misconduct is proved and is not justified in setting aside the order of punishment. She

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶42

argued by saying that by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court on 24.09.2019, the workman was reinstated. Subsequent to the order of reinstatement, the workman has involved in almost eleven cases.

¶43

By way of reply to this point, counsel Sri.H.K.Komal., appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the alleged subsequent acts of misconduct cannot be taken note of. An attempt is made on behalf of the respondent to contend that the Labour Court has extenso referred to the material on record and justified in setting aside the order of punishment. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶44

The submission made on behalf of the respective parties is noted with care. A perusal of the memo dated:11.12.2023 would reveal that after reinstatement, the respondent is involved in almost eleven cases of NINC. The past and present misconduct of the respondent would depict that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently and carefully. When the charges are proved and the same has been upheld by the Labour Court, the question of exercising discretionary powers to modify the order of punishment is erroneous.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:44812 WP No. 41685 of 2019

¶47

For the reasons stated above the award of the Labour

¶48

Court is liable to be quashed and accordingly, it is quashed.

¶49

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 20.01.2018 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.01/2016 vide Annexure-E is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:23.12.2015 passed by the Corporation is confirmed.

¶50

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶51

In view of the confirmation of the dismissal order, the interim order of reinstatement stands discharged and the pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. C. Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B. C. Rajesh

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

M/S Auma India Private Ltd. Vs the Secretary to Government

Sri Krishnappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporaton Vs G Shivakumar

Tajusab Nadaf Vs the Managing Director Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissisoner