KSRTC appealed a Single Judge order setting aside dismissal of a conductor for ticket-related misconduct upheld by the Labour Court. With the respondent already superannuated, the Division Bench modified the Single Judge's order, granting gratuity only for service excluding 1999-2010, and disposed of the appeal without reinstatement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:23031-DB WA No. 382 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MYSURU RURAL DIVISION BANNIMANTAP ROAD MYSURU - 570 015 NOW REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER K.S.R.T.C., SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 027 …APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.)
AND:
Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka
C J RAJKUMAR S/O C K JAWARE SHETTY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O HANGODU VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENT
(BY MS. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADV. FOR SRI. L SHEKAR, ADV.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 20/9/2018 IN WP 7242/2015 ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, V KAMESWAR RAO, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7242/2015, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the award dated 06.05.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Mysuru in IID No.39/2000. Suffice to state that the petitioner was an employee of the appellant-Corporation. He was working as a Conductor having been appointed on 21.10.1985.
from Hullahalli to Taraganahally and 9 of Rs.1.25 paisa NIAC passengers travelling from Hullahalli to Kurihundi. Thereafter, an article of charge was issued to the respondent on 10.11.1993. The respondent denied the charges which have been framed against him. The proceedings were held by the Enquiry Officer, who in his report dated 18.07.1994, has proved the charges which have been framed against the respondent. The enquiry report was served on the respondent, to which a reply was submitted by the respondent. It is the conceded case of the appellant that the enquiry report submitted dated 18.07.1994 was not acted upon till 01.12.1999, when punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the respondent herein. The order of dismissal became the subject matter of an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court in IID No.39/2000. By an order dated 18.03.2009, the Labour Court has held the order of dismissal is not justified. The said order became the subject matter of writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.29301/2009. On 19.02.2010, an interim order was passed, whereby the appellant-Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent into service subject to the result of the writ petition. On
20.04.2010, the respondent was reinstated in service subject to the result of the writ petition. The aforesaid writ petition being WP No.29301/2009 was allowed in part, whereby this Court had remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration with a direction that the respondent would be continued in service till the disposal of the proceedings before the Labour Court. On 06.05.2014, the Labour Court held the charge as proved and upheld the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. Accordingly on 21.05.2014, the respondent was relieved from service consequent to the award of the Labour Court. This award became the subject matter of the writ petition being W.P.No.7242/2015, wherein the impugned order has been passed.
the learned Single Judge could not have set aside the award passed by the Labour Court as serious charges have been proved against the respondent. It is also her submission that even the past conduct of the respondent was such that the dismissal was the only penalty which commensurate the misconduct. She has relied upon certain judgments in her favour to contend that in similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the enquiry proceedings being proper, the learned Single Judge could not have interfered with the penalty imposed on the respondent. It is her submission the order of the learned Single Judge is contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
superannuation, he would be contended if the terminal benefits are granted to him by counting the years of service put in by him. On this, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, the period between 1999 to 2010, when the proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, cannot be counted as part of service for the respondent to get the benefit of said period. She do concede to the fact that the 4 years of service put in by the respondent on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, between 2010 to 2014, the respondent may be entitled to the benefit of Gratuity. She also submits that for the period of service prior to the year 1999 put in by the respondent, the Corporation has already paid the Gratuity.
of the view that the dispute between the parties be put to an end by directing that the respondent shall be entitled to the Gratuity for the total years of service put in by him, except for the period between 1999 to 2010. In other words, the respondent even if has been paid the Gratuity for the period prior to 1999, he shall be entitled to Gratuity for the period between 20.04.2010 to 21.05.2014. To that extent, the order
of learned Single Judge is modified.
"9. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the entire materials on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner is a conductor in the Respondent - Corporation. The Respondent Corporation issued articles of charge alleging that the petitioner had failed to post the stage entries in respect of stage No.8 i.e., Kurihundi and failed to observe four passengers traveling without ticket in the driver cabin from Hullahalli to Kurihundi and that 7 of Rs.2.25 paisa NIAC passengers traveling from Hullahalli to Taraganahally, Hullahalli to Kurihundi. There is a considerable delay in acting upon the enquiry report. By the fact that no action is taken the petitioner might have presumed that respondent has dropped the proceedings. The petitioner has explained that he was in the process of issuing tickets and since top light of the bus was not working which prevented him to issue tickets with speed. This was suggested S to the Management witness. The Labour Court has not referred the same in the impugned award. The petitioner had put in 14 years of service. Except the present misconduct no other antecedents against the petitioner."
entitled to reinstatement in service as he has attained the age
of superannuation nor the consequential benefits as directed by the learned Single Judge, except to the extent what has been stated by us, above. The same shall be released to the respondent.
The appeal is disposed of .
All I.As., if any, are also disposed of .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
PA
CT:HS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the dismissal of a conductor, upheld by the Labour Court after a remand, could stand despite an unexplained delay in acting on the enquiry report.
What gratuity and terminal benefits the respondent was entitled to after attaining superannuation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Divisional Controller Mysuru Rural Division KSRTC (rep. by Chief Law Officer)
C J Rajkumar
V Kameswar Rao
C M Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
