Allowed

General Secretary v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Karnataka HC28 Mar 2023WP/50762/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Industrial Tribunal award imposing minor penalty on a conductor for failing to issue tickets to 13 passengers. The Court held the penalty unsustainable due to lack of material evidence and absence of cogent reasons to reject the enquiry officer's finding.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 30.09.2010 is quashed and the claim petition is allowed.

General Secretary Vs the Chief Traffic Manager — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 50762 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 50762 OF 2012 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GENERAL SECRETARY KSRTC & BMTC UNITED, EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560 054.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER B.M.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE- 560 027.

¶13

(BY SRI. KALEEMULLA SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.73/2007 DATED 30.9.2010 PLACED AT ANNEXURE-V TO THE WRIT PETITION & CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER & GRANT ALL THE RELIEFS AS CLAIMED THEREIN.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

WP No. 50762 of 2012

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner who is working as conductor in the respondent-Corporation was imposed with minor penalty by withholding three annual increments cumulatively and treating the suspension period as not on duty alleging that the workman had not issued tickets to 13 passengers of denomination of Rs.3/- after having collected the fare from the said passengers and also he had threatened the checking officer.

¶21

The petitioner-workman raised a dispute under Section 10(1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal after examining the material on record held that the charge against the workman is proved and accordingly dismissed the claim petition confirming the order of imposing minor penalty against the workman.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the material on record has not given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. In the absence of any material to substantiate that the charge against the workman is proved, the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Industrial Tribunal requires to be quashed.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the Industrial Tribunal after considering the statement of the checking Officer and after perusing Exs.M.2 and M30 has rightly held that the

¶24

¶25

WP No. 50762 of 2012

¶26

charge against the workman is proved and the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal is based on the evidence on record and in the absence of perversity or arbitrariness in the finding recorded by the Industrial Tribunal, the impugned award does not warrant any interference.

¶27

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

Admittedly, the checking Officer has not recorded the statement of the ticketless passengers and also not imposed penalty on the said passengers, and having claimed that the said passengers had threatened with dire consequences, the checking Officer also had not lodged FIR before the Jurisdictional Police to substantiate the said allegation.

¶29

The enquiry officer after considering the statement of the checking officer and also the statement of the passengers who were travelling in the bus has recorded the finding that the charge against the workman is not proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer stating that there were 131 pilferage cases filed against the workman. In the absence of any material to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner-workman after collecting fare had not issued tickets to 13 passengers, and only on the basis of the past history could not have passed the impugned order of imposing minor penalty.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 50762 of 2012

¶32

Perusal of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal also indicates that no reasons are assigned for holding that the charge against the workman is proved, and in the absence of any material that the petitioner-workman after collecting the fare has not issued tickets to the 13 passengers, the impugned order of imposing minor penalty against the petitioner-workman is not sustainable in law.

¶33

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The writ petition is allowed;

¶36

ii) The impugned award dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D. No.73/2007 is hereby quashed and consequently, the claim petition under Section 10(1) (C) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 is allowed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

General Secretary v. the Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

General Secretary v. the Chief Traffic Manager

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

R. Parvathamma Vs Chief Engineer

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri K Krishna Raju

Smt. Annamma Since Dead by Lrs Vs Tahasildar

Sri H v Nagaraj Vs the Regional Transport Authority