Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport v. B T Revanna

Karnataka HC11 Oct 2023WP/50851/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition against an Industrial Tribunal's award which had modified a departmental punishment order reducing increments. The Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under Section 11A to modify a minor penalty despite affirming misconduct, and quashed the Tribunal's award confirming the punishment by reducing increments permanently.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Industrial Tribunal dated 18.09.2017 in I.D.No.186/2011 is quashed. The order of punishment dated 31.07.2009 reducing increments permanently is confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Transport Vs B T Revanna — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37033 WP No. 50851 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.50851 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

B.T.REVANNA REP. BY GENERAL SECRETARY, C/O KSRTC AND BMTC, UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION, NO.23, 4^TH MAIN, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. T.M.VIJAYAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:37033 WP No. 50851 of 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.M.Vijayakumar., learned counsel for the caveator/ respondent have appeared in person.

¶22

The respondent is an Assistant Artisan in the establishment of the Corporation. On 07.11.2006 he was on duty in the Depot Workshop. He drove the bus bearing No.KA06-F-049. While he was reversing the bus on the ramp, he ran over a person resulting in his death. Hence, he was subjected to disciplinary inquiry proceedings by issuing Articles of charge. The respondent submitted his reply denying the charges. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed an order of punishment on 31.07.2009 reducing two increments permanently.

¶23

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent raised a dispute and the same came to be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.186/2011. The domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was held fair and proper. The Tribunal vide award dated:18.09.2017 modified the order of punishment by denying

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:37033 WP No. 50851 of 2018

¶26

two increments for a period of two years. 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.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶28

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 award of the Industrial Tribunal requires interference.

¶30

The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and he was visited with an order of punishment i.e., reducing two increments permanently.

¶31

Sri.T.M.Vijayakumar., learned counsel for the respondent in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that other officers were also responsible for the accident/ incident. However, the Corporation has not taken any action against other officers, but the Corporation victimized the respondent for the alleged act of misconduct. He argued by saying that the Tribunal extenso referred to the material on

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:37033 WP No. 50851 of 2018

¶34

record and justified in modifying the order of punishment. Counsel therefore, submits that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶35

By way of answer to this contention, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that the Tribunal has erred in modifying the minor penalty in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶36

The rival contentions are noted with utmost care.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the Tribunal upheld the charge and affirmed the misconduct. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment under Section 11A of the I.D Act. Furthermore, the order of punishment being not one related to termination, dismissal, removal from service. Hence, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to modify the order of punishment by exercising power under Section 11A of the I.D Act.

¶38

The Tribunal erred in modifying the imposition of minor penalty. This modification is without jurisdiction in as much as the Tribunal has no power to modify the minor penalty. It should have been seen that Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act could not have been pressed into service in

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:37033 WP No. 50851 of 2018

¶41

respect of the minor penalty. The Tribunal erred in modifying the minor penalty despite affirming the misconduct. The managerial decision to impose a minor penalty is absolute and the same cannot be modified in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. In any view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Award of the Industrial Tribunal is otherwise erroneous and unjust. For the reasons stated above, the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award dated:18.09.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.186/2011 vide Annexure-G is quashed. The order of punishment dated:31.07.2009 is confirmed.

¶43

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Karnataka State Road Transport v. B T Revanna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport v. B T Revanna

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

M/S Hindustan Distilleries (Karnataka) Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Annaraya @ Annappa

Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs Assistant Labour Commissioner and Appellate Officer

Sri. Parameswarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev N R Vs the Management of

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College Vs Sri. a Karunanidhi