Sri H v Rajanna Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The present appeal has been filed with the delay of 669 days from the date of the impugned judgment and order dated 5^th June 2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2708/2013, instituted by the respondent/Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation). The writ petition was filed by the Corporation being aggrieved by the award dated 02.04.2012, passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in I.D.No.104/2010.

¶44

The Trade Union took up the cause of the appellant/workman, who was employed as a Conductor with the respondent/Corporation. The appellant/workman was inflicted with the punishment by the order dated 19.11.2004, whereby three annual increments were withheld with cumulative effect. This order of punishment dated 19.11.2004 has been challenged on behalf of the

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50019-DB WA No. 828 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

appellant by the Trade Union by raising an industrial dispute, which was referred to by the State Government by the order dated 22.04.2010, under Section 10 (1)(d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as `the Act').

¶48

The Industrial Tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the appellant/workman.

¶49

The said award came to be challenged by the respondent/Corporation in Writ Petition No.2708/2013. The learned Single Judge after examining the case and provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, has been of the view that the Industrial Tribunal is not empowered under Section 11A of the Act to interfere with the order of punishment, except where the order is in respect of

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50019-DB WA No. 828 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

dismissal or discharge of a workman. It has been further said that the delay of more than six years in raising the industrial dispute was overlooked by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal is not empowered to substitute its own opinion regarding the quantum of punishment, except in the case of dismissal or discharge.

¶53

Having considered the impugned judgment and

¶54

the provisions of Section 11A of the Act, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge's view is a correct view on the facts and law. It does not require any interference by this Court. Even otherwise, this appeal has been filed after a delay of more than two years. Hence, we do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶55

Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed.

¶56