Allowed

Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri John D Souza

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023WP/54281/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that the Additional Labour Commissioner erred in granting permission to prosecute the Corporation. The award of the Industrial Tribunal had been implemented with financial adjustments, but the Commissioner overlooked these details. Consequently, the court quashed the permission order and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order dated 11.10.2017 passed by Additional Labour Commissioner; Writ of Certiorari ordered; Writ Petition allowed.

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri John D Souza — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.54281 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD, SHANTINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRI. JOHN D' SOUZA AGE: MAJOR, GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED, NO.23, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE - 560 054.

¶14

ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS), LABOUR DEPARTMENT, KARMIKA BHAVANA,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶17

BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

[BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI., HCGP FOR R2; PARTY-IN-PERSON-RESPONDENT NO.1 (ABSENT)]

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., for the petitioner and Smt.V.Spoorthi., learned HCGP for respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶24

The name of respondent No.1 party in person is called out thrice in the open Court. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 party in person either personally or through video conferencing. The respondent No.1 party in person is absent.

¶25

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 10.11.2023. On that day, learned counsel for the petitioner was present, there was no representation on behalf

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶27

of respondent No.1 party in person. Hence, the petition was ordered to be listed on 15.11.2023. Accordingly, the petition is listed today. As already noted above, the name of respondent No.1 party in person is called out thrice in the open Court, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1 party in person either personally or through video conferencing. The respondent No.1 party in person is absent. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the order on merits of the case.

¶28

The brief facts of the case are stated as under:

¶29

The first respondent was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He participated in an illegal strike, used abusive language against his higher officers and violated ESMA. He was issued with Articles of charge for the aforesaid misconduct. He was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry proceedings along with nine other workmen who participated in the illegal strike. The inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are not proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer, hence dissenting note was drawn. Notice was issued to the first respondent to show cause as to why dissenting views should

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶31

not be accepted. The first respondent instead of submitting his reply, approached this Court and the same ended in dismissal of the Writ Petition. Thereafter, he filed the reply to the show cause notice. The first respondent was dismissed from service after considering his reply to the show cause notice vide order dated:06.02.2002. The first respondent filed an appeal and the same was allowed in part. The order of dismissal was set-aside by directing to reduce his basic pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as not on duty.

¶32

The first respondent questioned the order of the Appellate Authority by raising a dispute and the same came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.103/2009. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated:01.02.2014 set-aside the order of the Appellate Authority and directed to pay the withheld benefits consequent on setting aside the order of punishment as also directed that the period of suspension to be treated as on duty. The Corporation implemented the award of the Industrial Tribunal by issue of DEO order dated:24.07.2014 vide Annexure-D. There was a mistake in mentioning the date of the order of punishment and

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶34

hence, a Corrigendum was issued on 12.08.2014 correcting the date as 01.04.2002 instead of 01.02.2004.

¶35

As things stood thus, the first respondent approached the second respondent alleging non-implementation of the award of the Tribunal dated:01.02.2014 in I.D.No.103/2009. The Corporation filed its reply and appraised the second respondent about the calculation made extending the benefit of the award as also the adjusting the financial benefit in terms of the award towards the dues to be paid by the first respondent. The Corporation by way of a Communication dated:21.01.2015 once again explained in writing to the second respondent the details of the adjustment made in respect of the financial benefits arising from the award of the Industrial Tribunal. A notice was issued on 23.02.2016 to the first respondent. The first respondent received the notice before the Addl. Labour Commissioner. The second respondent overlooked the contention of the Corporation and accorded permission to prosecute the Corporation. Hence, the Corporation has filed the captioned Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner and HCGP for respondent No.2 have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶39

The point that requires consideration is whether the second respondent is justified in according permission to prosecute the Corporation. The answer is No .

¶40

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. It is not in dispute that after a series of litigation, the Corporation implemented the award of the Tribunal. However, on an erroneous approach, the first respondent approached the second respondent contending that the Corporation has not implemented the award, hence he sought permission to prosecute the Corporation for nonimplementation of the award of the Tribunal. Suffice it to note that the Corporation brought to the notice of the Addl. Labour Commissioner regarding the details and the adjustments made in respect of the financial benefits arising from the award. The Communications are at Annexures-E and F. A perusal of the same would depict that the Corporation brought to the notice of

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶43

the Labour Commissioner about the details and the adjustments made in respect of the financial benefits arising from the award. It was also brought to the notice of the Labour Commissioner that the first respondent is liable to pay Rs.24,271/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy One only) and Corporation is not liable to pay any amount to the first respondent. The Labour Commissioner overlooked the details submitted by the Corporation and erroneously accorded permission to prosecute the Corporation. The accord of permission is unsustainable in law.

¶44

Since the issue relates to prosecution, the Labour Commissioner should have been more diligent in discharging his duties. I may venture to say that the Labour Commissioner has failed to have regard to the relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters.

¶45

For the reasons stated above, the order passed by the second respondent is liable to be set-aside and accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶46

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:11.10.2017 passed by the Addl. Labour Commissioner in

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40550 WP No. 54281 of 2017

¶48

DzÉÃ±À ¸ÀASÉå: LJJ-1/¹Dgï-17/2014-15 vide Annexure-H is

¶49

quashed.

¶50

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri John D Souza

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief Traffic Manager v. Sri John D Souza

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

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs S.R. Krishna Kumar

M/S Stumpp Schuele and Somappa Vs the Secretary

M/S Mcf Limited Vs Sri. Jagadish Kunder

Shyamarao Vs the Divisional Controller

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner

The Management of Ksrtc Vs Sri. Sikandar Butkurki