Allowed

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.I.B.Rajesh

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023WP/53959/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition against a Labour Court award. The Court held that provisions of Industrial Disputes Act do not apply to a trainee driver and the Labour Court were not justified in entertaining the dispute. The Labour Court Award was accordingly set aside.

What did the court decide?

The Award dated 31.01.2014 of the Labour Court in I.D.A. No.01/2010 is quashed and the order of dismissal dated 08.04.2010 is confirmed.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri.I.B.Rajesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:37386 WP No. 53959 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.53959 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, DIVISION OFFICE, KSRTC, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101, REP.BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., BANGALORE - 560 027.

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. I.B.RAJESH S/O I.E.BHADRE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, KSRTC CHIKMAGALUR DEPOT, BADGE NO.6134, R/O INDRAVALLI VILLAGE, NANDIPURA POST, MADIGERE TALUK, M.SRINIVASAN, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. S.P.RAMESHA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:37386 WP No. 53959 of 2014

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.P.Ramesha., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶21

The respondent was appointed as a trainee driver in the establishment of the Corporation on 26.04.2008. On 29.07.2009, he was driving a bus bearing No.KA 13 F 1076, from Halmad to Chickmagalur. The bus turtled down from the tank bund as a result of which one minor passenger died and other 104 passengers sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. Hence, he was issued with Articles of charge. He did not reply to the Articles of charge. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted his report holding that the charges made against the respondent are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and removed the name of respondent from the list of trainee driver vide order dated:08.04.2010.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37386 WP No. 53959 of 2014

¶23

Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Chickmagalur in I.D.A.No.01/2010. The Labour Court held the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation as fair and proper. The Labour Court vide Award dated:31.01.2014 set-aside the order of punishment. 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.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the Writ Papers with utmost care.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case in SANTOSH MENISINAKAI Vs. KSRTC - W.A.No.100369/2014 disposed of on 18.08.2014.

¶26

The point that requires consideration is whether the Labour Court is justified in entertaining the dispute.

¶27

Suffice it to note that the respondent being a trainee driver who had put in three months of service as on date of the accident. The fact that the respondent is a trainee

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37386 WP No. 53959 of 2014

¶29

driver is not in dispute. Therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the respondent. Therefore, he could not have raised the dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Labour Court could not have entertained the dispute.

¶30

It is pivotal to note that this Court vide order dated:21.01.2015 directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent as a trainee driver. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Corporation reinstated the respondent on 15.04.2015.

¶31

Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka., submits that a memo has been filed by enclosing the order to show that the name of the respondent has been removed from the list of the trainee driver on 05.11/12.2016. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and appropriate order may be passed.

¶32

Submission is noted. Memo is placed on record. A perusal of the order would reveal that the name of respondent has been removed from the list of trainee driver. For the reasons

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:37386 WP No. 53959 of 2014

¶35

stated above the Award of the Labour Court is liable to be setaside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶36

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated:31.01.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Chikmagalur in I.D.A. No.01/2010 vide Annexure-F is quashed. The order of

¶37

dismissal dated:08.04.2010 is confirmed.

¶38

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶39

In view of confirmation of the order of dismissal, the

¶40

interim order granted by this Court stands discharged and pending Interlocutory applications if any stands disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

TKN/MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.I.B.Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller v. Sri.I.B.Rajesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Parameswarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev N R Vs the Management of

Karnataka State Road Transport Vs B T Revanna

P. Murthy Vs Karnataka State Road Transport

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.G.Harish

Mr.Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka