Dismissed¶83

B.M.T.C. v. Anwar Khan

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025WP/36328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BMTC writ petition against Industrial Tribunal award (I.D.No.254/2011, 05.08.2021) reinstating driver punished after fatal 25.03.2008 bus accident; disciplinary authority disagreed with enquiry officer's finding; HC holds onus on management once enquiry findings rejected, no spot inspection/Surveyor's report, no perversity in award; petition dismissed, benefits payable in 3 months; Karnataka HC, Pradeep Singh Yerur J., 03.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed at admission stage without issuing notice; impugned award dated 05.08.2021 in I.D.No.254/2011 sustained; respondent-workman entitled to entire benefits, payable within three months from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶83

B.M.T.C. Vs Anwar Khan — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶83

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any perversity or illegality committed by the tribunal in not appreciating the materials placed on record, and whether the tribunal erred in passing the award. +1 more

¶74

Court's answer

No good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the tribunal's well-reasoned finding and award; there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal, hence the writ petition fails.

¶79

Ratio / Principle

Where the Disciplinary Authority does not accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the onus is on the Management to prove its case for imposition of the punishment, and that the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct.

¶72

Key takeaways

Despite the bus having fallen into a ditch, the Corporation failed to place sufficient material to establish the driver's negligence; there is absolutely no piece of evidence regarding spot inspection or a Surveyor's report, hence no cogent material against the workman.ratio¶79

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (single judge, Pradeep Singh Yerur J.) — Writ Petition (Arts. 226/227) by BMTC seeking quashing of Industrial Tribunal award dated 05.08.2021 in I.D.No.254/2011 which set aside the punishment (reduction of basic pay by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect, order dt. 28.10.2009) imposed on a driver after a 25.03.2008 accident near Richmond Road Flyover in which the conductor died and 8 passengers were injured. Enquiry Officer had found the charges not proved; the Disciplinary Authority overruled him by dissent note (02.09.2009) and imposed punishment. Held: where the Disciplinary Authority rejects the Enquiry Officer's findings, the onus lies on management to prove the misconduct and proportionality; no spot inspection or Surveyor's report existed and no cogent material established the driver's negligence; the award showed no perversity or illegality. Petition dismissed without notice; award sustained; workman entitled to entire benefits within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.36328 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B.M.T.C. K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR

¶8

BENGALURU

¶9

BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶10

CHIEF LAW OFFICER-560 027 …PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

ANWAR KHAN S/O.JAMAL SAHEB AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS REPRESENTED BY

¶14

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

GENERAL SECRETARY KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION BTS NORTH DIVISION NO.6 SIRUR PARK ROAD SESHADRIPURAM

¶16

BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 05.08.2021 PASSED IN I.D.NO.254/2011 BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioner-BMTC seeking to quash the impugned award dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal (for short, 'the tribunal), Bengaluru.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner-BMTC that the respondent who was employed as a driver with the petitioner was on duty on 25.03.2008 in Bus bearing registration No.KA 01 F 1249 plying on route Timber Layout to Shivajinagar. While he was driving near Richmond Road Flyover, the respondent-driver drove the Bus in a rash and negligent manner and got into a ditch, as result of which, the front main leaf of the Bus was cut. Due to the same, the bus dashed against East Block Compound. Consequently, the conductor of the Bus was thrown out of the bus, sustained grievous injuries and died in the hospital and further 8 passengers travelling in the bus sustained injuries. In view of the accident and the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

negligence, the articles of charge dated 20.06.2008 were issued to the respondent-driver for alleged rash and negligent driving, to which, the respondent-driver replied denying all the charges.

¶29

2.1 It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent was subject to disciplinary proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer vide a dissent note dated 02.09.2009. Consequently, the respondent-driver was issued with show cause notice, to which a reply was submitted by him. It is further stated that the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, held the charges to be proved and consequently, imposed an order of punishment dated 28.10.2009 reducing the basic pay of the respondent by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

2.2 It is further case of the petitioner that aggrieved

¶34

by the order of punishment imposed, the respondent

¶35

raised dispute, which was referred to the tribunal. The petitioner had appeared and contested the matter. The tribunal held that the Disciplinary Enquiry conducted as fair and proper.

¶36

2.3 The BMTC got examined a witness as MW.1 and the workman-driver got examined himself as a witness as WW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.C1 to C24.

¶37

2.4 Upon hearing the parties to the proceedings, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of punishment was not justified and consequently set-aside the order, which is impugned before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel Smt.H.R.Renuka for petitionerBMTC vehemently contends that the award passed by the tribunal is perverse, erroneous and contrary to the materials placed on record. She further contends that despite the tribunal recording a finding with regard to the

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

death of the conductor and several others being injured, it

¶43

has failed to appreciate the fact of the theory of 'Res Ipsa Loquitur '. She further contends that the accident is a fact and the manner in which the accident occurred would clearly establish the negligence on the part of the respondent-driver. The death of the conductor and inmates passengers got injured due to the accident, is not in dispute. She further contends that the punishment imposed against the respondent is minor. The tribunal ought not to have interfered with the order of punishment.

¶44

3.1 Learned counsel further contends that the tribunal came to an erroneous conclusion with regard to no report in respect of mechanical condition of the bus being bad. She also contends that the vehicle did not have any defect and it is due to the negligence on the part of the respondent-workman, the accident occurred and except interested statement of the respondent-workman, no material evidence was placed before the tribunal to come to the conclusion that the driver was not negligent in

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

driving the bus. She further contends that the respondent

¶49

has not adduced any evidence of supporting witnesses, for example, inmates and passengers of the bus. The tribunal has not taken these aspects into consideration. Therefore, on these grounds, she sustains the minor punishment imposed and same ought not to have interfered by the tribunal.

¶50

At the stage of hearing, this Court is not inclined to accept the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner and does not find any need to issue notice to the respondent-workman, as this is a fit case to reject the petition at the stage of admission itself for the following reasons:

¶51

This Court is not inclined to repeat the facts as the same are already narrated hereinabove. It is not in dispute that the respondent is working as a driver with the petitioner-BMTC. At the instance of the respondentworkman, the matter was referred to the Industrial Dispute by the Government of Karnataka vide order dated

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

03.10.2011 being the competent authority. Notice was issued; enquiry was conduced and the same was held to be fair and proper, which was conceded by the respondent-workman. The matter was posted for evidence with regard to victimisation of the employee and since the enquiry came to be conceded as fair and proper by the respondent-workman, the same was not gone into by the tribunal. The questions for consideration was whether there was any unfair labour practice by the petitionerBMTC while imposing punishment and whether the punishment ordered was sustainable.

¶55

4.1 Several documents were produced by the petitioner-BMTC to establish its case of negligence on the part of the respondent-workman and to sustain the punishment imposed against the respondent-workman. The workman examined himself as WW.1.

¶56

4.2 Primarily, the allegation made by the petitionerBMTC against the respondent-workman for rash and

¶57

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

negligent driving of the Bus and having driven the bus into a ditch and the main leaf of the bus was cut, due to which, the accident occurred and consequently, the conductor was thrown out of the bus, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same and 08 passengers along with him sustained injuries. An enquiry was conducted and the charges were not proved. However, the Departmental Enquiry was conducted and punishment was imposed on the respondent-workman reducing basic pay by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect.

¶61

4.3 It was the contention of the petitioner-BMTC before the tribunal that the respondent-workman was involved in several cases during his service period. However, learned counsel for petitioner now contends that despite giving sufficient opportunities to reform himself by imposing minor punishments, he has not rectified himself and he has committed misconduct once again. It is also the contention of learned counsel that apart from examining the respondent-workman, he has not examined

¶62

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

any other person and no documents are produced to substantiate his case. Therefore, the order passed by the tribunal requires to be set-aside.

¶66

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner-BMTC

¶67

and perused the impugned award and documents annexed along with the petition morefully with regard to evidence adduced by the parties.

¶68

The tribunal has carefully gone through all these materials placed on record and analysed each of the evidence, both oral and documentary and after considering the same, came to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent-workman in causation of the accident. The tribunal has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the parties, so also, the cross-examination and the documents produced including the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by the Enquiry Officer, who has given the finding holding the respondent-workman is not guilty of the

¶69

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

charges. However, the Disciplinary Authority having not accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer proceeded further to impose punishment on the respondentworkman.

¶72

In such cases, where the Disciplinary Authority does not accept the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the onus is on the Management to prove its case for imposition of the punishment against the workman and so also, with regard to punishment being commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct. This Court is not inclined to go into detail and analyse the facts, which is already on record, as the same having been considered by the tribunal in detail.

¶73

What requires to be seen here by this Court is

¶74

whether there is any perversity or illegality committed by the tribunal in not appreciating the materials placed on record and whether the tribunal has committed any error in passing award.

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

Having gone through the entire materials placed

¶79

on record, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned finding recorded by the tribunal, so also, the award as there is no illegality or perversity in the award passed by the tribunal. It is to be seen that despite the Bus fallen into a ditch, on the basis of the Corporation, if the driver was responsible for negligence then they ought to have placed sufficient material to substantiate the same, which is not done here. Absolutely, there is no piece of evidence regarding spot inspection or Surveyor's report. Hence, there is no cogent material against the workman.

¶80

Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶81

ORDER

¶82

i) The Petition is dismissed;

¶83

ii) The impugned award dated 05.08.2021 passed in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal is sustained;

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:34536 WP No. 36328 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

iii) The respondent-workman shall be entitled to the

¶88

entire benefits and the same shall be paid within a

¶89

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶90

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶91

¶92

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Award dated 05.08.2021 in I.D.No.254/2011 by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru, holding the order of punishment imposed on the respondent-workman not justified and setting it aside.¶17
Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru · 05.08.2021
Prior proceeding
On 25.03.2008 the respondent, a driver with BMTC, was on duty in Bus KA 01 F 1249 on route Timber Layout to Shivajinagar; near Richmond Road Flyover the bus allegedly driven rashly/negligently went into a ditch, front main leaf was cut, the bus dashed against East Block Compound; the conductor was thrown out, sustained grievous injuries and died, and 8 passengers were injured.¶25
Prior proceeding
Articles of charge dated 20.06.2008 issued to the respondent-driver for alleged rash and negligent driving; he replied denying all charges.¶28
Prior proceeding
Enquiry Officer found the charges not proved; the Disciplinary Authority disagreed vide dissent note dated 02.09.2009.¶29
Prior proceeding
Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, held the charges proved and imposed punishment dated 28.10.2009 reducing the respondent's basic pay by two annual incremental stages with cumulative effect.¶29
Prior proceeding
Respondent raised an industrial dispute over the punishment; matter referred to the tribunal, which heard the parties and held the disciplinary enquiry fair and proper.¶35
Prior proceeding
Reference made by the Government of Karnataka vide order dated 03.10.2011; enquiry conceded fair and proper by the respondent-workman; matter posted on victimisation/unfair labour practice and sustainability of punishment.¶54
Prior proceeding
Before the tribunal, BMTC examined MW.1; the workman examined himself as WW.1; documents Exs.C1 to C24 marked.¶36
Prior proceeding
Tribunal concluded the order of punishment was not justified and set it aside; that award is impugned in this writ petition, rejected at admission stage without notice to the respondent.¶37

B.M.T.C. v. Anwar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M.T.C. v. Anwar Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Myrada Vs the Regional Pf Commissioner-Ii Employees Provident Fund Organization

Sgs India Private Limited Vs K Nagaraju Reddu

Anantha Padmanabha Rao T. R. Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Smt Nagarathnamma Vs Smt Nanjamma

John D Souza Vs Divisional Controller Ksrtc

Karnataka Gramin Bank Vs the Appellate Authority