Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. Naveenkumar M R

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023WP/56295/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by KSRTC to quash the Labour Court award that had set aside a dismissal order. The court confirmed the respondent's dismissal for misappropriation of revenue due to his incorrigible conduct and history of repeated offenses.

What did the court decide?

Award of Labour Court dated 20.02.2017 is quashed, order of dismissal dated 08.07.2015 is confirmed, and interim reinstatement is discharged.

Karnataka State Road Vs Naveenkumar M R — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.56295 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

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

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

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

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

NAVEENKUMAR M.R., S/O RANGASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.632/13, 2^ND MAIN, B.M.SRINAGAR, METAGALLI, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., learned counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶20

2. The brief facts are these:

¶21

The respondent - Sri.Naveenkumar.M.R is a Driver Cum Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. On 13.04.2015, he was conducting the bus bearing No. F-4124 that belonged to the Corporation that was plying on the route from Gaddige to Mysuru. The bus came to be checked at D.K. Farm and it was found that there were twenty eight passengers in the bus, he had committed the following irregularities while discharging his work. He had failed to issue tickets to a group of nine passengers traveling from Gaddige to Alanahalli and he had failed to collect Rs.15/- (Rupees Fifteen only) each from them and failed to issue tickets, thereby misappropriated the revenue of the Corporation to the extent of Rs.135/- (Rupees One Hundred and Thirty Five only). On 15.04.2015, the checking officials submitted their report with regard to the aforesaid irregularity/ misconduct committed by the workman.

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶23

On 18.04.2015, the respondent was issued with Articles of charge. He submitted his reply to the Articles of charge denying the charges. The respondent was subjected to the domestic inquiry and a detailed inquiry was conducted and the inquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with a second show cause notice along with the findings of the inquiry officer calling upon him to show cause as to why the findings of the inquiry officer should not be accepted. The respondent submitted his reply to the second show cause notice.

¶24

The disciplinary authority examined the entire records pertaining to the case, accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and they also referred to the history sheet of the workman, it was found that he was involved in one hundred and eighteen cases in the past, despite providing sufficient opportunity, the respondent did not improve his conduct and he was found to be incorrigible and in the present case, he had not issued tickets worth Rs.135/- (Rupees One Hundred and Thirty Five only) with an intention to pilfer the revenue of the Corporation. Hence, passed an order of punishment, dismissing the respondent from the service on 08.07.2015.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶27

Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent filed a claim petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.43/2015. On a preliminary issue, the Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated 20.02.2017, 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.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent

¶29

have urged several contentions.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶31

1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, R.S.R.T.C V/S. GHANSHYAM SHARMA - (2002) I LLJ 234.

¶32

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.SRTC ETAWAH AND OTHERS V/S. HOTILAL AND ANOTHER - (2003) 3 SCC 605.

¶33

3. U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANOTHER V/S. GOPAL SHUKLA & ANOTHER - CIVIL APPEAL NO.2038/2012.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶35

4. THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/S. SRI.A.RAMANNA - WRIT APPEAL NO.4880/2000 (LK).

¶36

5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE V/S. K.B.CHANDRASHEKAR - (2002) (4) KLJ 394.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following decision.

¶38

THE DEPOT MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V/S. V.V.RAO - (2007) 15 SCC 675.

¶39

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

¶40

The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.

¶41

The facts are sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. The charge made against the workman is that he had failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare from the passengers. The charge stood established and the Labour Court also concluded that the charge is proved. However, the Labour Court went ahead and modified the order of punishment. The respondent being a Conductor of the Corporation, should

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶44

discharge his duties diligently and carefully. As a Conductor, his only work is to issue tickets, collect the fare and account for the same. He is paid salary for this work.

¶45

In the present case, the passengers boarded the bus at Gaddige and the bus came to be checked at D.K. Farm, there were only twenty eight passengers in the bus. These circumstances would clearly shows that the respondent had no difficulty in issuing the tickets; non issue of tickets would only establish that he had no intention to issue tickets with a view to misappropriate the same. Furthermore, the rule prevailing in the Corporation in the matter of issue of tickets is "Issue and Start", the said rule is violated and there is no justification for the respondent not to issue tickets. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court. Once the charge is established, the charge being one for misappropriation of revenue of the Corporation to the extent of Rs.135/- (Rupees One Hundred and Thirty Five only), the order of dismissal was just and proper.

¶46

It is pivotal to note that the Labour Court ought to have accepted the case of the Corporation that the workman

¶47

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶48

was punished on 118 occasions in the past. The workman failed to improve his conduct despite providing sufficient opportunity. The Labour Court failed to appreciate the fact that the workman was an habitual offender. The finding of the Labour Court that the order of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate is also unsustainable in law.

¶49

The Labour Court has failed to notice that there cannot be a similar yardstick in all cases of disciplinary matters. Each case differs as the misconduct also varies from case to case. It is perhaps well to observe that each case depends on the gravity of the misconduct coupled with the history of the worker.

¶50

An attempt is made on behalf of the respondent that pursuant to the interim order dated:15.02.2018, respondent is reinstated and he is discharging his duties diligently and honestly. Counsel Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., in presenting his arguments drew the attention of the Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to Supra , to contend that once the interim order of reinstatement is passed, the order of reinstatement cannot be disturbed. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent cannot be accepted. The reason is

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶53

quite simple. The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while evaluating the misconduct committed by him and this is contrary to the records. The disciplinary authority has taken into consideration the past conduct of the respondent while passing the order of dismissal. Needless to observe that taking note of the past conduct is a mandate requirement as per Regulation 25 of the KSRTC (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, 1971. The disciplinary authority is justified in dismissing the petitioner from the service.

¶54

Furthermore, even after the reinstatement, the respondent is involved in almost eighteen cases of NINC. The past and present misconduct of the respondent would depict that he is not interested in discharging his duties diligently and carefully. The Labour Court has overlooked the misconduct and in particular the involvement of the respondent in almost one hundred and eighteen cases and simply proceeded to set-aside the order dismissal. This is unsustainable in law.

¶55

For the reasons stated above the award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside and accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:43105 WP No. 56295 of 2017

¶58

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in I.I.D.No.43/2015 vide Annexure-B is quashed. The order of dismissal dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Corporation is confirmed.

¶59

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶60

In view of the confirmation of the dismissal order, the

¶61

interim order of reinstatement stands discharged.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Karnataka State Road v. Naveenkumar M R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. Naveenkumar M R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Krishna Kumar Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri H Somashekar Vs the Chairman

D K Subbe Gowda Vs M E Rudresh

M/S J K Tyres & Vs the General Secretary

M.P.Mahesha Vs the Divisional Controller

Executive Engineer Vs D Basavaraj