Allowed

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2023WP/51652/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an award of the Labour Court that dismissed an industrial dispute regarding dismissal for rash and negligent driving, ruling that the employer failed to substantiate the charge. The petitioner was reinstated without back wages due to failure to work since dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned award, allowed the claim petition in part, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and benefits but denied back wages.

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli Vs the Divisional… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 51652 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 51652 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. ARUNKUMAR NAVALLI, S/O SRI MAHADEVA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, KULAGERI, BADAMI TALUK HEBBALLLI, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT-587201.

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. SRIDEVI T R, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶12

(BY SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE AWARD DTD 31.08.2017 IN ID NO.57/2015 PASSED BY THE THIRD ADDL LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU AT ANNX-H AND ETC.,

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

WP No. 51652 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed challenging the award dated 31.8.2017 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in ID No.57/2015, by which, the claim petition filed under Section 10-4A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 came to be dismissed.

¶20

The charge against the petitioner is that due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus caused accident, by which passengers in the bus sustained severe injuries and one passenger succumbed to death and the vehicle was also damaged. The Enquiry Officer after considering the material on record submitted a report stating that the charge is proved. The Disciplinary Authority after examining the material on record dismissed the workman from service, against which, the workman raised a dispute. The domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was treated as a preliminary issue and it was held that the same was fair and proper.

¶21

The workman examined himself as WW1 and marked the documents at Exs.W1 to W6 and the Corporation examined two witnesses as MWs.1 and 2 and marked the documents at Exs.M1 to M33 to prove its case.

¶22

The Labour Court after examining the evidence on record, held that the charge against the workman is proved and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition, against which, the present petition is filed.

¶23

¶24

WP No. 51652 of 2017

¶25

To substantiate the allegation that the accident was due to the result of rash and negligent driving by the workman, the Corporation produced Ex.M7-first information report, Ex.M8 - TR-18 Form, Ex.M9 - accident photographs and Ex.M11 - accident report form. The said documents do not indicate that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the workman.

¶26

The workman has produced a copy of the judgment of acquittal, by which, the workman has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC holding that the charge against the workman is not proved.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The respondent has not placed any material to substantiate the allegation that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner - Workman. The document at Ex.M6 i.e., Crime Detail Form does not indicate that the accident was caused solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner - Workman. In the absence of any material, the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the charge against the workman is proved, are not sustainable in law and the said findings are based on no evidence or insufficient evidence.

¶29

Hence, in the absence of any conclusive proof, I am of the opinion that the respondent - Corporation has failed to prove the charge against the petitioner - Workman.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 51652 of 2017

¶32

10. Accordingly, I pass the following

¶33

ORDER

¶34

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶35

(ii) The impugned award 31.8.2017 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru, in I.D No.57/2015 is hereby quashed and the claim petition filed by the petitioner - Workman under Section 104A of the Act is allowed in part.

¶36

(iii) Respondent - Corporation is hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner - workman into service with continuity of service and with all benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement. However, the petitioner having not worked from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement, is not entitled for backwages, applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay.

¶37

(iv) Respondent is directed to reinstate the workman into service within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

BKM/VP

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Arunkumar Navalli v. the Divisional Controller

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

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Sadiq Khan

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Jagannath B J Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri Cheluva Raju S/O Sri Narasegowda Vs the Director General

Sri B M Dhananjaya Vs the Managing Director

Sri. S Karunakaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority