Dismissed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri R H Siddammanavar

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/42874/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by K.S.R.T.C. challenging an award of the Principal Labour Court. The Labour Court had reinstated a workman with continuity of service but withheld three annual increments due to proved misconduct regarding uncollected fares, invoking Section 11-A. The Court found no illegality in the award as valid reasons for lesser punishment were assigne

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed.

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

¶1

¶2

WP No. 42874 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 42874 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI R.H. SIDDAMMANAVAR S/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O NO.625/57, KSRTC LAYOUT, AVARAGERE POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 28.3.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.139/2014 PRODUCED AT ANENXURE-C.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP No. 42874 of 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner - Corporation challenging the award dated 28.3.2016 passed in ID No.139/2014 by the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru, by which, the claim petition filed under Section 10(4-A) was allowed in part, and the Corporation was directed to reinstate the workman into service with continuity of service without back wages by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

The workman was dismissed from service alleging that, there were 21+1+2 passengers, out of which, he neither issued tickets to two passengers, who were traveling from Shiggav to Bangalore, nor collected requisite fare of Rs.223/from them. The charge against the workman was held to be proved, however, by invoking Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was held that, the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, and accordingly imposed lesser punishment. The workman was reinstated into service pursuant to the impugned order passed by the Labour Court, and during the pendency of this writ petition, the workman retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.5.2022. Perusal of the impugned award, and also the records indicate that, the Labour Court invoking Section 11A of the I D Act has assigned the valid reasons for imposing lesser punishment. Hence, I do not find any illegality

¶23

¶24

WP No. 42874 of 2016

¶25

in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Writ petition stands dismissed.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

BKM

¶30

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 120

The Divisional Controller v. Sri R H Siddammanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri R H Siddammanavar

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

Manjunath Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri T C Venkatagiriyappa