Dismissed

The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubballi v. Sundarsing Rajaramsing Angadi

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024WP/110158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by NWKRTC challenging the Industrial Tribunal's order setting aside a penalty imposed on a retired workman for misappropriation. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's finding that the enquiry evidence was flawed and insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Order of the Industrial Tribunal confirmed.

The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubballi… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.110158 OF 2015(L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, HUBBALLI DIVISION HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, CHIEF LAW OFFICE, N W K R T C, CENTRAL OFFICES GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI SUNDARSING RAJARAMSING ANGADI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O: GANEHS NAGAR, MADIHAL, DHARWAD.

¶13

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE AWARD DATED 11.08.2014 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI IN ID .NO.70/2011 PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE C AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE ID NO.70/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBBALLI AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner – NWKRTC

¶21

against the award dated 11.08.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No.70/2011 made by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes’ Act, 1947 to set aside the order dated 25.07.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing the basic pay of the respondent – workman by three increments permanently and further held that the workman is entitled to the monetary benefits, which were denied consequent upon the impugned order of punishment with further consequential directions.

¶22

The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent was discharging his duties as conductor attached to the Dharwad depot. That while he was on duty as a conductor, one F.A.Patil, Assistant Traffic Inspector, had checked the waybills, which were submitted by the respondent-workman while he was discharging his duties. That during the scrutiny, it was found that in respect of six waybills, respondent-workman had misappropriated the Corporation revenue to the extent of Rs.200.50 by making short remittance. Accordingly, a charge

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶24

memo was issued to the workman alleging misconduct and pilferage. Respondent had issued a reply to the said charge memo. Not being satisfied with the same, an enquiry was constituted who submitted a report and recommended imposition of punishment by way to reduction of basic salary by three increments permanently. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent workman had approached the Tribunal seeking redressal of his grievance by filing the aforesaid dispute under I.D.No.70/2011 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Statement of objection to the same was filed by the petitioner herein.

¶25

Petitioner adduced evidence, examining one Statistical Officer, who was cross-examined. The Industrial Tribunal has held that the enquiry conducted by the petitionerAuthority was not fair and proper and that the evidence led was not acceptable. Accordingly set aside the order imposing punishment of permanent reduction of three increments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Corporation is before this Court.

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶27

4. Learned counsel for the Corporation reiterating the

¶28

grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not relying upon the evidence adduced on behalf of the Corporation by examining its witness on the premise that the petitioner ought to have examined someone who was aware of the facts of the case and that the witness who was examined was not aware of the facts of the case. He submits that the officer concerned had passed away and he could not be examined. Therefore, the petitioner Corporation examined the present witness, who has spoken based on the records maintained in the Office of the Corporation and the same cannot be held to be not reliable. He submits that short remittance was found during the audit conducted by concerned officer and the same therefore cannot be found fault with. Thus, he submits that lack of appreciation of evidence by the Industrial Tribunal has resulted in perversity and hence, seeks for setting aside of the impugned order.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent workman submits that no particulars have been furnished with regard to alleged misappropriation by the

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶31

respondent workman. That no notice was issued to the respondent workman at the time of conducting the alleged audit. The witness examined was not aware of the facts of the case. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, Industrial Tribunal had come to just conclusion warranting no interference. He submits that respondent workman is now retired, having attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2015. That the petitioner Corporation is unjustifiable in withholding the service benefits of the petitioner in view of the pendency of the present writ petition. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶32

Heard and perused the records.

¶33

In the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, one

¶34

Leshappa Husanappa Rathod who has been examined as MW2 on behalf of the petitioner Corporation has stated to have been working as Assistant Traffic Superintendant. At paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, six instances of alleged misappropriation/short remittance /pilferage are referred to. Perusal of the said details reveal that there are no particulars with regard to the dates of submission of the waybill or short

¶35

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶36

remittance / deposits made. The said affidavit evidence also do not indicate the date on which the purported audit was conducted. However, a general statement is made that audit was conducted several years subsequent to the alleged deposit of short remittance of the amount by the respondent workman. The said evidence cannot be held to be acceptable as the same falls short of required particulars, and has been rightly declined by the Industrial Tribunal.

¶37

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is no material regarding respondent workman having been issued with any notice prior to or during the purported audit. Thus, based on these material evidence, the petitioner Corporation has handed over punishment of withholding three increment permanently. The Industrial Tribunal taking note of these aspects of the matter has declined to accept the evidence produced by the petitioner Corporation, justifying the action of imposition punishment. The order passed by the Tribunal is one based on the appreciation of evidence and coming categorical conclusion of lack of evidence having been produced by the petitioner

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8888 WP No. 110158 of 2015

¶39

Corporation and also incompetency of the witness. In the absence of petitioner making out any illegality or perversity on the part of the Industrial Tribunal in appreciating the evidence, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the said order.

¶40

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as the same lacks merit. Order of the Industrial Tribunal is confirmed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

VNP,KGK*/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubballi v. Sundarsing Rajaramsing Angadi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, Nwkrtc, Hubballi v. Sundarsing Rajaramsing Angadi

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

Shri Krishna S/O Channappa Nilajkar Vs Smt. Shanta W/O Krishna Nilajkar

Smt Shanta W/O Krishna Nilajkar Vs Shri Krishna S/O Channappa Nilajkar

Shree Hemaraddi Mallamma Education Trust Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Parvatamma W/O. Late Shivanand Puttraddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Susheela P. Sawkar Vs the Registrar

Mrs. Sameena W/O Rajesab Kolhapuri Vs Mr. Rajesab S/O Abdulsalam Kolhapuri