Dismissed

Sri S Honnappa v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024WP/53842/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC driver-cum-conductor punished for failing to issue tickets and collect fares challenged the Industrial Tribunal award upholding withholding of increments. The High Court found no perversity or victimisation, dismissed the writ petition, confirmed the award but set aside the Rs.1000 cost imposed by the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Award confirmed except Rs.1000 cost set aside; writ petition dismissed.

Sri S Honnappa Vs the Divisional Controller — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.53842 OF 2013 (S-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S. HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. SIDDAPPA, DRIVER-CUM-CONDUCTOR KSRTC. R/AT NO.160, GULBARGA COLONY, 1^ST BLOCK, EAST JAYANAGAR, BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 011. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. MANJULA N. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE (V.C.))

¶9

AND:

¶10

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

¶11

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN – 573 201. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 04.06.2013, IN REF.NO.116/06 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED & MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC.

¶13

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

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner - workman assails the impugned award dated 04.06.2013 in Ref.No.116/2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore ('Tribunal' for short), whereby, the reference made by the Government of Karnataka under Section 10(1)(c)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the ID Act' for short) and claim statement of the workman was rejected quantifying the cost of Rs. 1000/-.

¶17

Heard Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, learned

¶18

counsel for the petitioner and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

Petitioner was appointed as a Driver-cumConductor in the respondent-Corporation, on the allegation of non issuing of ticket to two passengers and non collection of fare, while on duty on 07.08.2003, charge sheet was issued and enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges leveled against the workman is proved and submitted the report. The

¶20

¶21

NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶22

Disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry report and material placed before it, imposed punishment of withholding three annual increments permanently and to treat the period of suspension as not on duty.

¶23

Dispute raised by the workman was referred to the Tribunal in Ref.No.116/2006, the reference on earlier occasion was rejected, writ petition filed before this Court by the petitioner-workman was allowed and the matter

¶24

was remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the preliminary issue first and to take up other issues later.

¶25

The Tribunal on remand held that the domestic

¶26

enquiry conducted by the respondent is not fair and proper, however, on the question of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that there is no perversity or victimization in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶27

The facts reveal that the Tribunal on

¶28

consideration of the material evidence placed before it,

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶31

more particularly, Ex.M.8 –Way bill maintained by the Corporation and the offence memo at Ex.M.9 issued to the workman, and the evidence M.W.1 and M.W.2 who had already adduced evidence on merits before the remand, arrived at a conclusion that there was no victimization or any unfair labour practice committed by the Corporation on the workman.

¶32

The misconduct committed by the workman is

¶33

failure to issue tickets to the passenger and also failure to collect the chargeable fare from those passengers and having found that there is no acceptable explanation on the part of the workman, it was held that the workman had intention to cause financial loss to the Corporation and has committed misconduct of pilferage of the revenue to the Corporation. The amount of pilferage is not of importance, it is the state of mind that has to be considered.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶35

Section 11A applies only to the punishment of

¶36

discharge or dismissal and does not apply to other minor punishments such as warning, withholding increments, demotion, suspension, etc., It is only in cases of discharge or dismissal by way of punishment that this section vests the discretionary jurisdiction in the Tribunal to direct reinstatement with or without condition or to vary the punishment as the circumstances of the case may warrant.

¶37

In the event, the workman approaches the Labour Court when a minor punishment is imposed, the Labour Court/Tribunal has power to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority having found perversity or victimization on the part of Corporation while imposing the punishment on the workman and when the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct.

¶38

The Tribunal on fact arrived at a conclusion that

¶39

there was no perversity nor victimization and imposition of

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5588 WP No. 53842 of 2013

¶41

punishment for the misconduct is not disproportionate and accordingly, confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The manner in which the Tribunal has considered the entire material placed before it, this Court is of the considered view, that the same does not warrant any interference by this Court except the cost imposed by the Tribunal which is quantified at Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

a) Writ petition is hereby dismissed . b) Impugned award dated 04.06.2013 in

¶44

Ref.No.116/2006 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, stands confirmed , however, quantifying cost of Rs.1000/- is set aside.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

DDU

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri S Honnappa v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Honnappa v. the Divisional Controller

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

M/S Armstrong Design and Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner DIVISION-2

Mr. Yogeesha T N Vs Management of

Balappa Vs the Divisional Controller

H Bhagwandas Vs K P T C L

Mr Mukkaram Jan Vs Ministry of Labour & Employment

M/S Biesse Manufacturing Company Ltd., Vs Sri Omkaramurthy T.G.