Sri.Shankarappa Lamani Vs the Divisional Controller

SRI SHANKARAPPA LAMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS SON OF SRI FAKKIRAPPA LAMANI, R/A NO L I G 1582, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, BEHIND NEW COURT BUILDING, HASSAN - 573201.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI NAIK V S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K S R T C, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN - 573201.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MYSURU PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-D. QUASH THE AWARD DTD.14.3.2019 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MYSURU IN REF NO.202/2017 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶26

This petition is filed assailing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore (Hassan Camp) in reference No. 202/2017. In terms of the impugned award, the Labour Court rejected the reference. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner-employee is before this Court.

¶27

Petitioner joined services under the respondent on 20.05.1999 as driver cum conductor. On 27.12.2006, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner has not issued ticket to one passenger and has failed to collect Rs.83/- while he was on duty from Moodalahippa to Bengaluru. Petitioner replied to the show cause notice and denied the charges. The enquiry was held and the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charges. Second show cause notice was issued. Petitioner disputed the findings. The disciplinary authority imposed

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

penalty by reducing the petitioner's pay by three stages of increments permanently and petitioner's suspension period was treated as not spent on duty.

¶31

Aggrieved by the aforementioned penalty, the

¶32

petitioner approached the Industrial Tribunal.

¶33

Petitioner contended that enquiry was not fair and proper. The Tribunal after considering the materials on record concluded that the inquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter, the evidence was led on the pleas raised by the petitioner. The Tribunal has concluded that the reference has to be rejected on two grounds:

¶34

(i) The dispute is raised 8 years from the date of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.

¶35

(ii) The charges against the petitioner are established.

¶36

Aggrieved by the aforementioned award, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the dispute is raised eight years after the penalty was imposed, the Tribunal has concluded that the inquiry was fair and proper. Thereafter the parties have led evidence on the plea of victimisation and the respondent-Corporation has produced documents in support of its plea. Since, evidence is led by the respondent-Corporation, though there is a delay of eight years in raising the dispute, the respondent-Corporation is not put to any prejudice. This being the position, the Industrial Tribunal could not have rejected the reference on the premise that the reference is raised eight years after the penalty was imposed.

¶41

It is his further submission that enquiry was held against the petitioner on the charge that petitioner has not issued a ticket to one passenger out of 23 passengers who were travelling in the bus. However, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were only 22 passengers and the plea that there were 23 passengers is not established. Thus, he would contend that both the disciplinary authority as well as the Tribunal erred in holding that the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

charges are proved though there is no material to conclude that the charges are proved.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation on the other hand would submit that the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay as no satisfactory evidence is adduced as to why the petitioner raised the dispute eight years after the penalty was imposed. In addition to that, on merit also he would submit that the charges levelled against the petitioner are established in a properly conducted enquiry. He would submit that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the proceeding, was given opportunity to lead evidence and it is established that there were 23 passengers and tickets were issued only to 22 passengers. The document viz. the fine imposed on the passenger without ticket is produced and established. In addition to that, the petitioner has also admitted in the cross examination that he had issued a ticket to one passenger. Under these circumstances, he would submit that the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the reference.

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Learned counsel for the respondent citing the following two orders would submit that the dispute raised after inordinate delay should not be entertained:

¶49

(i) Order in Writ Petition No.10697/2009

¶50

(ii) Order in Writ Petition No.11688/2011

¶51

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶52

From the cursory perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the petition is dismissed not on the ground of delay but also on merits. Under these circumstances, this Court would consider the case of the petitioner on merits in addition to the plea of delay raised by the respondent.

¶53

On going through the materials on record, it is noticed that the respondent-Corporation has alleged that the petitioner has not issued a ticket to a passenger out of 23 passengers travelling on the bus on that day. The fact that the petitioner was on duty is not in dispute. It is also noticed that the respondent-Corporation to substantiate its contention that

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

one passenger was not issued a ticket, has produced a receipt issued to the ticket less passenger who has paid the fine for having travelled without ticket. The other evidence also on record would establish that the respondent-Corporation has established the charge against the petitioner. In the crossexamination also, the petitioner has admitted that one passenger was without ticket. Since the charges are duly established and the Tribunal has come to the said conclusion based on the evidence on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶57

In addition to that, it is also noticed that the dispute

¶58

is raised eight years after the penalty was imposed on the petitioner. Acceptable reasons are not forth coming as to what prevented the petitioner from raising the dispute within the reasonable period. On that score also, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.

¶59

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the

¶60

8 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:21073 WP No. 5666 of 2020

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

misconduct alleged, considering the materials on record, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the respondent-Corporation as the scope of the Court to interfere in such penalty is limited.

¶64

For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is

¶65

dismissed.

¶66

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶67

BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Sri.Shankarappa Lamani v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Shankarappa Lamani v. the Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Workmen of Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. Vs the Government of India

The Managing Director Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (Bescom) Vs G Shivappa

C.Pandiyaraj Vs the Management of M/S East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd.

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Chandrashekar B Doddamani

Division Controller Vs Mallikarjuna

Sri H S Chennappa Vs the Management of Ksrtc