Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. Lingaraju

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/52015/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by KSRTC sought to set aside a Labour Court award reinstating a driver-dismissed for pilferage. The HC quashed the award, confined the Appellate Authority to Regulation 34 to enhance penalties, and confirmed dismissal given the employee's history of 59 past misconducts.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Labour Court award of 04.11.2017 quashed; Order of dismissal dated 20.07.2015 confirmed.

Karnataka State Road Vs Lingaraju — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 52015 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BANGALORE, BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

LINGARAJU

¶13

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

S/O VEERAIAH @ CHINKAIAY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O HITTANAHALLI AT POST, MALLAVALLI TALUK, KIRAGAVALU HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.H.M.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.DODDAIAH.D.S.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.M.Manjunath., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Doddaiah.D.S., for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶23

The brief facts are these:

¶24

The respondent - Lingaraju was appointed as a Driver cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 15.12.2013, he was conducting the bus bearing No.F-4367 that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from L & T to CTB (City Bus Stand). The bus was subjected to a surprise check at Basavanagudi. During the checking, it was found that there were 17+0+0 passengers in the bus. The respondent had not issued tickets to a group of five passengers despite collecting fare of Rs.12/- (Rupees Twelve only) each from them, these passengers were traveling from Bharat Cancer Hospital to Akashavani. Apart from this, the bus was required to go through the route Gokulam/ Nirmala Convent, but the respondent had changed the specified route and came

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶27

via Basavanagudi, PKS. The ticketless passengers were levied with penalty on the spot by the checking officials and their statements were recorded. The irregularity committed by the respondent was reported to the competent authority by reporting officers. Based on this report, the respondent was issued with Articles of charge, to which the respondent did not chose to reply.

¶28

The respondent though did not reply to the Articles of charge, the case was committed for an inquiry, to ascertain the truth in respect of the charges. The Inquiry Officer after affording sufficient opportunity to respondent to defend his case in the inquiry, submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The Disciplinary Authority imposed an order of punishment on 30.10.2014 by denying one increment with cumulative effect.

¶29

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on perusal of the order of punishment, was of view that the order of punishment imposed on the respondent is disproportionate and requires to be enhanced.

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶31

Therefore, the respondent was issued with a show cause notice on 14.03.2015 calling upon him to show cause as to why the punishment should not be enhanced, to which the respondent submitted his reply. The Appellate Authority on an assessment of the evidence on record as also taking into consideration the history sheet of respondent, dismissed him from service vide order dated:20.07.2015.

¶32

The respondent questioned the order of dismissal by filing a claim petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.34/2016. The parties to the proceedings filed their respective pleadings. The Corporation examined one witness and furnished documents which were marked as Exs.M1 to M22. The Labour Court framed an issue on the fairness of domestic inquiry and concluded that the inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. Thereafter, the respondent examined himself and furnished documents which were marked as Exs.W1 to W11. On an assessment of the evidence on record, the Labour Court was of the view that the order of punishment was harsh. Hence, the Labour Court vide award dated:04.11.2017 modified the order of punishment

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶34

by directing the reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service, consequential benefit and 20% of the back wages with denial of three 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.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶36

respondent have urged several contentions.

¶37

Learned counsel Sri.H.M.Manjunath., in presenting his arguments vehemently contended that the workman has questioned the award of the Labour Court in so far as it relates to the denial of full backwages and withholding of three increments with cumulative effect in the connected W.P.No.18283/2019.

¶38

Next, he submits that the domestic inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer is not fair and proper.

¶39

A further submission is made that the Appellate Authority has no power to enhance the penalty. It is argued on behalf of the respondent that the Labour Court extenso referred to the material on record and justified in concluding that the order of penalty is disproportionate to the misconduct. Hence, he

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶42

submits that the award of the Labour Court does not require interference. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶43

By way of reply to the point regarding power of Appellate Authority, learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., appearing on behalf of the Corporation drew the attention of the Court to Regulation 34 of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 to contend that the Appellate Authority has the power to confirm, enhance, reduce or set-aside the penalty. She argued by saying that the Appellate Authority rightly exercised the power vested in it and took note of the material evidence on record and enhanced the penalty.

¶44

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the records with utmost care.

¶45

The following points would arise for consideration:

¶46

(1) Whether the Appellate Authority has the

¶47

power to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority?

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶49

(2) Whether the award of the Labour Court

¶50

requires interference?

¶51

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the workman came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of minor punishment. The workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority was of the opinion that the order of minor punishment imposed on the respondent was disproportionate, hence, issued a show cause notice. It is relevant to note that the respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice. In the reply, he did not raise the contention regarding the power of the Appellate Authority. On the other hand, he subjected himself before the Appellate Authority and prosecuted the appeal without any resistance. Furthermore, the contention regarding the power of Appellate Authority was also not taken before the Labour Court and for the first time, he has taken the said contention in the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation. Having not raised the contention regarding the power of the Appellate Authority, the respondent is estopped and hence, he is not permitted to take the contention about the power of Appellate Authority for the

¶52

¶53

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶54

first time in this petition. That apart, Regulation 34 deals with consideration of appeal. A perusal of the same makes it very clear that the Appellate Authority has the power to confirm, enhance, reduce or set-aside the penalty that has been imposed by the disciplinary authority. The order of the Appellate Authority is marked as Ex.M.19. Perused the same with care. A perusal of the same would reveal that the Appellate Authority exercising power under Regulation 34 of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971 has passed the order. Hence, I have no hesitation to conclude that the Appellate Authority has the power under Regulation 34 to interfere with the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.

¶55

Next, let me consider about the merits of the case. Learned counsel for the workman conceded about the fairness of the domestic inquiry, hence, the Labour Court held Issue No.1 in favor of the Corporation.

¶56

The Labour Court termed the order of dismissal as illegal, the charge is held to be proved, therefore, at no stretch of imagination, the order of punishment would have been termed

¶57

¶58

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶59

as illegal. The respondent with proved misconduct and history of 59 cases in the past, cannot be treated on par with other employees as contended by him. The finding in this regard is also erroneous. The Labour Court recorded a finding that the workman did commit a misconduct, however, proceeded to accept the contention of the workman that the case was foisted by the Checking Officials to reach the target fixed on them. This finding is unfounded. The reason is quite simple. The Checking officials are required to discharge their duties as entrusted by the Corporation. They have no vested interest. Furthermore, when the charge is held to be proved, the finding that the Checking officials had to reach the target fixed on them is erroneous.

¶60

The Labour Court has failed to consider the factual aspect that the respondent is an habitual offender in as much as he is involved in 59 cases in the past. Despite accord of sufficient opportunity, he did not reform himself, failed to improve his conduct. He continued his act of pilferage, on account of which the order of dismissal is passed. In my view, such an employee does not deserve any sympathy, much less a misplaced sympathy. Hence, the direction to reinstate is unsustainable in

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:45265 WP No. 52015 of 2018

¶63

law. I may venture to say that the Labour Court has failed to have regard to relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For the reasons stated above, the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶64

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The award

¶65

dated:04.11.2017 passed by the III Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in Reference No.34/2016 vide Annexure-K is quashed. The order of dismissal dated:20.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority is confirmed.

¶66

7. As a result, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶67

In view of confirmation of the order of dismissal, the

¶68

interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and pending interlocutory application if any are disposed of.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

TKN,MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Karnataka State Road v. Lingaraju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. Lingaraju

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

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs the Deputy Labour Commissisoner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B. C. Rajesh

B v Ashwathnarayanappa Vs Lakkaiah @ Gurulakaiah

Lingaraju Vs Chief Traffic Manager

Dr B v Srinivasan Vs Sri N Veerabhadrappa