Allowed

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. R P Dayanandasagar

Karnataka HC17 Sept 2024WP/19775/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC challenged a Labour Court award substituting a conductor's dismissal with termination and terminal benefits; the workman's cross-petition sought reinstatement with back wages. The High Court held the Labour Court's interference with punishment was unsustainable given proved grave misconduct and 84 prior misconducts.

What did the court decide?

Corporation's writ allowed; Labour Court award set aside; dismissal order of disciplinary authority confirmed; workman's petition dismissed.

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

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.19775 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC) C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.14658 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

IN WP No. 19775/2013:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, SUBHASHNAGAR, BANGALORE, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. … PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

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

¶13

R. P. DAYANANDASAGAR, S/O M.R. LATE PUTTIAH, ADULT, SUBHASHNAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.K. KOMAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.P. RAMESHA, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶15

AWARD OF THE PRL. LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE DATED 30.04.12, IN ID.NO.84/1999, VIDE ANN-D AND ETC.

¶16

IN WP NO. 14658/2016

¶17

BETWEEN:

¶18

R. P. DAYANAND SAGAR, S/O. M.R. PUTTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 530, SUBHASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-562 127.

¶19

...PETITIONER

¶20

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, SUBHASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶23

...RESPONDENT

¶24

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT IN I.D.NO.84/99 DATED 30.04.2012 EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF REINSTATEMENT CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND BACK WAGES VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC.

¶26

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶29

COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶30

Writ Petition No.19775/2013 is preferred by the Corporation and Writ petition No.14658/2016 is preferred by the workman assailing the legality and correctness of the order passed in I.D.No.84/1999 dated 30.04.2012 by the Principal Labour Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court' for short), whereby, the petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID' Act for short) was allowed in-part, by invoking Section 11A of the ID Act, sought for substituting the order of dismissal with the order of termination of the workman from service, by virtue of being continued in service which entitles him for pensionary benefits as he would have attained superannuation on 30.06.2012 if had continued in service, back wages and consequently benefits except for terminal benefits are denied.

¶31

Workman was appointed as conductor in the

¶32

Corporation, on allegation of certain misconduct, articles

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶34

of charges were issued and enquiry was conducted, enquiry report was submitted holding the charges levelled against the workman were proved. The disciplinary authority, while considering the report and the material placed before it, imposed punishment of dismissal of workman from service. The workman raised dispute by filing claim statement under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act, the Labour Court on the issue of validity of domestic enquiry, held that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation is fair and proper, and in the first instance dismissed the claim statement. Challenging the award, the workman filed W.P.No.21431/2005 which came to be allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. The Labour Court on remand decided the matter afresh and again dismissed the claim petition, Writ Petition No.21127/2010 preferred by the workman was allowed and the matter was again remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. On remand, Labour Court, has now substituted the order of

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶36

dismissal to one of order of termination by directing payment of terminal benefits.

¶37

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶39

Though the learned counsel for the respondent-

¶40

workman on 12.01.2024, made submission that the workman is no more and sought time to file memo with details of the legal representatives, no material is forthcoming to indicate that the respondent-workman is no more and hence, the matter is considered on merits and both the counsel have been heard. Articles of charges were issued to the workman on 03.07.1997, which reads as under:

¶41

"On 16.1.1997 at about 8 am you along with Sri Mahimanna, driver and Sri RenukanadaConductor-who were transferred from 9^th depot, barged into the chambers of depot manager, depot 9 and abused the depot manager and threatened his family members of dire consequences."

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶43

The disciplinary authority accepted the findings

¶44

recorded by the enquiry officer and dismissed the workman from the service vide order dated 20.02.1999. The claim statement was preferred under Section 10(4-A) of the I.D. Act. The workman had approached this Court on several occasion against the dismissal of this claim petition and the matter stood remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, the fairness of domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation was held to be fair and proper and what remained to be considered before the Labour Court was, to appreciate the evidence led before the Enquiry Officer in support of the charges.

¶45

The Labour Court while appreciating the evidence on record has held that the charges are proved and once the charges have been held to be proved and upheld by the Labour Court, the Labour Court could not have interfered with the order of punishment on the ground that it causes hardship to the workman. What was required to be considered by the Labour Court was,

¶46

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶47

whether there was victimization and whether the order of punishment was disproportionate to the proved misconduct while exercising the discretionary power under Section 11A of the ID Act. The Labour Court having arrived at a conclusion that the workman had been guilty of serious charges of misbehaviour, the interference of the

¶48

order of punishment imposed by the Enquiry Officer for the proved act of misconduct is unsustainable, the Labour Court failed to consider that the workman was involved in 84 cases of past misconduct of similar nature and the same was established before the Labour Court.

¶49

The Labour Court has shown misplaced sympathy to the workman by substituting the order of dismissal to an order of termination and directing the Corporation to pay the terminal benefits. The granting of benefits to the workman is, awarding bonus to the workman for his proved misconduct and punishing the employer, the charges levelled against the workman was misbehaviour with the superior officer, manhandling and

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:38155 WP No. 19775 of 2013 C/W WP No. 14658 of 2016

¶51

abusing in filthy language and such misconduct by the workman is of a grave nature which cannot be taken lightly, the past misconduct is not once, but of 84 misconduct, making this Court to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court and this Court pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

i. The WP No.19775/2013 preferred by the Corporation is allowed and WP No.14658/2016 preferred by the workman is dismissed.

¶54

ii. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court is

¶55

hereby set aside and the order of the disciplinary authority stands confirmed.

¶56

Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

¶57

TMP,AT

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. R P Dayanandasagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. R P Dayanandasagar

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

P. C. Ramalingappa Vs Vijaya @ Viji

Sri Boraiah Vs Sri Malleshaiah Alias Mallesha

Smt. Rajamma Vs Sri. v. Krishnamurthy

M/S Automotive Axles Ltd. Vs Sri a Syed Shabeeruddin

Ashaunnisa Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

The Workmen of Tafe Employees Union Vs Management of Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited