Allowed

Karnataka State Road v. B Chandrashekar

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/58106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka set aside a Labour Court order that granted a disabled employee conveyance allowance from the date of his accident. The Court held the allowance should have been claimed based on a 40% disability certificate obtained in 2015, not the 2004 accident date.

What did the court decide?

The second order of the Labour Court dated 24.10.2017 in Application No.4/2015 is quashed.

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

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.58106 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

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

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

B.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O MUNDAPPA BELCHADA, ADULT, R/O BANDITHADKA HOUSE, POST KANYANA, BANTWALA TALUK - 574 279.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE [ABSENT])

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

¶22

There is no representation on behalf of respondent either personally or through video conferencing.

¶23

As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the petition was listed on 29.09.2023. On that day, at request on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent, the petition was ordered to be listed on 05.10.2023. The petition was listed on 05.10.2023. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of respondent. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition was ordered to be listed on 06.10.2023 to hear counsel for respondent. Accordingly, the petition is listed today to hear counsel for respondent. As already noted above, when the matter is called there is no representation on behalf of respondent, either personally or through video conferencing.

¶24

2. The brief facts are these:

¶25

The respondent was a Driver in the establishment of the Corporation. While he was on duty in the bus bearing No. KA-

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶28

09-F-2320, he met with an accident. He submitted a representation on 25.10.2005 requesting for change of cadre. His case was referred to the Medical Board. The Medical Board opined that he is not fit to resume duty as a Driver. However, the percentage of his disability was not stated by the Board. On 26.04.2006 the case of the respondent was referred for Change of Cadre Committee. The Committee recommended change of cadre to the respondent to the post of Attender and the respondent was accorded change of cadre to the post of Attender. The change of cadre was provided in terms of Regulation 20(3) of KSRTC (Cadre and Recruitment) Regulations.

¶29

As things stood thus, on 14.10.2015, the respondent submitted a representation along with Medical Certificate requesting to accord him the allowance applicable to the physically handicapped person. The respondent produced the medical certificate dated:31.01.2016 certifying the percentage of disability as 40%, hence the case of the respondent was examined in the light of his medical certificate, his pay was fixed notionally from 03.05.2006 and by according him benefits from 01.06.2015 by issue of DEO dated:20.08.2016. He filed

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶32

an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in Application No.4/2015 claiming amount towards vehicle allowance and the arrears. The Labour Court vide order dated:24.10.2017 allowed the application in part. It is this order that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶34

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

¶35

The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent met with an accident while on duty and he was accorded change of cadre to the post of Attender. The respondent produced the medical certificate dated:31.01.2016. The Corporation took note of the medical certificate and his pay was re-fixed notionally from 03.05.2006 and by according him benefits from 01.06.2015 by issue of DEO dated:20.08.2016. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred in the year 2004 and his

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶37

case was considered in terms of a Circular No.681 dated:09.09.1987 which was in force as on the date of change of cadre accorded to the respondent. The benefits has been accorded in terms of this Circular, to which the respondent did not have anything to complain. Furthermore, the criteria for change of cadre in terms of the Circular is not based on percentage of disability, it is on the basis of the opinion of the Medical Board that he is unfit to discharge duty to the post held by him. Therefore, the workman was accorded change of cadre and he was entitled to benefits as provided in the Circular and he was accordingly extended the benefits.

¶38

The Labour Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner to claim the relief sought in petition, should have produced the certificate certifying that he is suffering from disability not less than 40% in terms of the Disability Act as on 2006. The cause of action for his claim would arise only from the date on which he is declared to have been suffering from disability not less than 40% i.e., on 02.06.2015. Suffice it to note that the production of the certificate that he is suffering disability of not less than 40% is only from 2015 onwards. Hence, the Labour Court could not have held that the applicant

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:36389 WP No. 58106 of 2018

¶41

is entitled for conveyance allowance at Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred only) per month from the date of accident till 09.10.2009. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the disability of not less than 40% is only from 02.06.2015. The Labour Court has overlooked this aspect of the matter and has erroneously went ahead and granted the relief as sought for by the applicant. In any view of the matter, the order of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The order of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust. For the reasons stated above, the order of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶42

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated:24.10.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Application No.4/2015 vide Annexure-E is quashed.

¶43

8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Karnataka State Road v. B Chandrashekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road v. B Chandrashekar

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 B S Puttegowda

Smt. Rudramma Vs the General Managers Office

Sri Shivanna S Vs the Work Manager

V Thathachar Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri B T Shivananda Vs the Management of Ksrtc

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri. P. a. Biradar