Dismissed

Sri P.R. Shiva Reddy v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/59801/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an Industrial Tribunal award that reduced the petitioner's pay by three incremental stages, the High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in rejecting the petitioner's explanation, which addressed a different fare denomination than the charged amount. The Court dismissed the petition and confirmed the punishment order.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed. The punishment order reducing the petitioner's pay by three incremental stages was confirmed.

Sri P.R. Shiva Reddy Vs the Divisional Controller — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26499 WP No. 59801 of 2014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 59801 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P.R.SHIVA REDDY S/O LATE SRI RAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A PRASHANTH NAGAR, CHIKKABALLPURA-562 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANAND., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.S.NAIK., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563 101.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

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

¶15

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Sri.Anand., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.V.S.Naik., for

¶20

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

¶21

respondent have appeared in person.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:26499 WP No. 59801 of 2014

¶24

2. The short facts are these:

¶25

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation in the year 1986. He was issued with the article of a charge alleging that on 26.06.2006 he was conducting a vehicle bearing Registration No.F-858, that belonged to the Corporation and he had failed to issue tickets to four passengers traveling from N.S.Gate to Ananthapur and did not collect fare from them. He denied the charges. The inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the inquiry officer and passed the punishment order on 19.02.2009 reducing his pay by three incremental stages with cumulative effect.

¶26

The petitioner raised a dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner and Conciliation Officer, Bengaluru. Upon failure of conciliation, the Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.305/2009. The Tribunal held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was fair and proper. The Industrial Tribunal vide award dated 26.08.2013 rejected the reference. It is this award that is

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:26499 WP No. 59801 of 2014

¶29

called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.

¶31

The simple question that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labor Court requires interference.

¶32

This is an interesting case of a Conductor of the establishment of the Corporation. Before I answer the point, let us quickly glance at the duties and responsibilities of a Conductor.

¶33

The regular work schedule of the Conductor is alarming. A Bus Conductor is a public transport employee who is responsible for ensuring the safe and efficient operation of a bus service. He is responsible for collecting fares and issuing tickets, ensuring all passengers have valid tickets, dealing with customer queries, and helping passengers on and off the bus. Some of the duties listed on the Bus Conductor are checking tickets, providing information to passengers, assisting

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26499 WP No. 59801 of 2014

¶35

passengers in boarding, and alighting the bus, maintaining order and discipline on the bus, counting fares, and issuing tickets, and reporting any irregularities to the supervisor. Skills required to become a Bus Conductor include excellent customer service skills, good numeric skills, the ability to work alone and as part of a team, the ability to stay calm under pressure, and the ability to always remain alert.

¶36

With this background, let me see what facts I have here. The issue revolves around a narrow compass. The petitioner came under disciplinary proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., reducing his pay by three incremental stages with cumulative effect. The charge made against the petitioner is that he had failed to issue tickets to four passengers traveling from N.S.Gate to Ananthpur and did not collect the fare from them i.e., the charge is specific about non-issue of tickets and non-collection of a fare of Rs.20/(Rupees Twenty only). But the workman attempted to contend that he had issued tickets for the denomination of Rs.48/(Rupees Forty-Eight only). The charge is about the non-issue and non-collection of a fare of Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) but the explanation offered by the workman is about the

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:26499 WP No. 59801 of 2014

¶38

¶39

collection of Rs.48/- (Rupees Forty-Eight only) which has nothing to do with the charges. Hence, the explanation cannot be accepted. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his case. The corporation is justified in its action. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. The punishment order is confirmed.

¶40

7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Sri P.R. Shiva Reddy v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P.R. Shiva Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs Meer Sajjad Hussain

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs the Assistatnt Labour

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri. Rangaswamaiah

Sri P Venkatesh Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)

Ganapathi G R Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri S N Ashwathanarayana Vs the Divisional Controller