Allowed

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Krishnappa

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024WP/18008/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged a Labour Court award reinstating a conductor removed for ticketless revenue pilferage. The High Court found the workman had 78 prior misconduct cases and remained unauthorisedly absent after reinstatement, set aside the award, and confirmed the removal order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Labour Court award dated 06.09.2018 in ID No.2/2016 set aside; disciplinary authority's order of removal from service confirmed.

The Karnataka State Road Transport… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.18008 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KOLAR DIVISION, BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI R.B. ANEPPANAVAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

V. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O. VENKATAPPA, R/AT YEDAHALLI, MULUBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 101. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI SHEKAR L., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 06.09.2018 PASSED IN I.D.NO.2/2016 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-J PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN I.D.NO.2/2016.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (“the Corporation” for short) questions the validity and correctness of the impugned award dated 06.09.2018 in ID No.2/2016 on the file of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Kolar, (“the Labour Court” for short), whereby, the claim statement filed by the respondent under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the ID Act” for short) was allowed, directing the Corporation to reinstate the respondent to his original post with all consequential benefits and continuity of service, but without backwages.

¶20

2. Heard Sri R.B. Aneppanavar, learned counsel

¶21

for the petitioner and Sri Shekar L., learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire material on record.

¶22

Articles of charges were issued to the respondent for his misconduct of committing default in issuing tickets to a group of passengers who were traveling from KGF to Krishnavaram in spite of collecting

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶24

the amount from the passengers, while he was performing his duty as a conductor on KGF-V Kote Route, show cause notice was issued, not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the respondent, enquiry officer was appointed for conducting enquiry, enquiry was conducted, the enquiry officer arrived at a conclusion that the charges leveled against the respondent are proved, the disciplinary authority, after considering the findings of the enquiry officer and the material placed before it, removed the respondent from service by the order dated 24.09.2012. Dispute was raised by the respondent and the appropriate Government ordered reference which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, claim statement was filed by the respondent contending that the enquiry conducted by the corporation was not fair and proper and no sufficient opportunity was given to him to substantiate his defence and that the dismissal passed by the Corporation is perverse and sought for direction to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, consequential benefits and backwages.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶27

On notice, the corporation appeared and filed their counter statement, inter alia, contending that the respondent was working as a trainee driver-cumconductor, and the charges leveled against the respondent was the misconduct of pilfering the revenue of the Corporation and that the enquiry conducted was after affording sufficient opportunity and has been rightly considered by the disciplinary authority, who passed an order of removal.

¶28

The Tribunal, on the preliminary issue regarding the fairness of the domestic enquiry, arrived at a conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the corporation is not fair and proper. On merits, the corporation examined two witnesses as MWs.1 and 2 and marked documents Exs.M-1 to M-5, the respondent examined himself as WW.1. The Tribunal, by the impugned award, allowed the claim statement and directed the corporation to reinstate the respondent with

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶30

all consequential benefits and continuity of service, but without backwages.

¶31

The contention of the corporation is that the respondent was involved in 78 cases of pilfering within seven years of service, out of which five were ORMC and four were RMC, however, his services was continued as a trainee, which aspect was failed to be considered by the Labour Court and thus, the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement with other benefits was not justified and the Corporation has been punished for the act of an employee who has misconducted himself by pilfering the revenue of the Corporation.

¶32

Learned counsel for the corporation brings to the notice of this Court by filing a memo stating that while staying the impugned award passed by the Labour Court, directed the Corporation to reinstate the respondent, which would be subject to the result of the writ petition, pursuant to which, the Corporation reinstated the respondent into service on 17.01.2020, the respondent

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶34

has remained unauthorizedly absent from his duty from 17.01.2020 to 31.07.2021, a memo is filed with the details

¶35

of the respondent unauthorisedly being absent during the pendency of the writ petition. The details of the unauthorized absence reads as under:

¶36

2020 (From 1	7.02.2020)
Details Period	Total absent days
Ab Jan-20	2
Ab Feb-20	5
Ab Mar-20	25
Ab Apr-20	30
Ab May-20	31
Ab Jun-20	28
Ab Jul-20	Nil
Ab Aug-20	31
Ab Sep-20	21
Ab Oct-20	6
Ab Nov-20	15
Ab Dec-20	20
Total	214

¶37

	2021 (T	ill July)
Details	Period	Total absent days
Ab	Jan-21	9
Ab	Feb-21	25
Ab	Mar-21	31
Ab	Apr-21	27
Ab	May-21	31
Ab	Jun-21	30
Ab	Jul-21	23
	Total	176

¶38

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶39

8. The question that falls for consideration before

¶40

this Court is,

¶41

“Whether the respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement and whether the award of the Labour Court warrants any interference by this Court? ”

¶42

The past history sheet of the respondent indicates that he has been involved in similar charges of pilfering the revenue of the Corporation by non - issuance of tickets, the perusal of the history sheet would indicate that the respondent was involved in 78 cases of nonissuance of tickets despite having received cash and certain misconduct of absenteeism, which came to be disposed of by imposing minor punishment. The Labour Court has taken a misplaced sympathy upon the workman and directed reinstatement. The work of a conductor is a matter of trust which is reposed by the employer as the employer is not present at the time of the work which the conductor undertakes. The trust which was reposed by the employer upon the workman has been lost not once,

¶43

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:37188 WP No. 18008 of 2019

¶44

but on several occasions and in spite of affording sufficient opportunity to the respondent to mend his ways, the respondent continued with non-issuance of tickets in spite of receiving the amount from the passengers. As stated supra, the respondent has remained absent to report for duty when asked to report for work from 17.01.2020 to 31.07.2021, the material on record would indicate that the respondent is not interested in continuing with the corporation and the point for consideration needs to be answered against the respondent and accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Writ petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) The impugned award passed by the Labour Court dated 06.09.2018 in ID No.2/2016 is hereby set aside.

¶48

(iii) The order passed by the disciplinary authority stands

¶49

confirmed.

¶50

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶51

S* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. v Krishnappa

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

Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri B Venkatesh

M/S Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkere Karkhane Ltd. Vs Sri Ramachandra

Manjegowda Vs Hemavathi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd.

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Manjunatha L

Emco Limited Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

M/S. Tokai Rubber Auto Parts India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of Karnataka