The Divisional Controller, Vs Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 60049 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC, BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

CHANDRASHEKHAR VEERAPPA TALWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NWKSRTC DRIVER, R/O. TOLAGI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶10

…RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI. S.K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGHCOURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF, WITH HOLDING THE TWO INCREMENTS PERMANENTLY IN BASIC PAY BE SET ASIDE PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBLI IN I.D. NO.47/2005 DATED 04/11/2009 WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶14

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶15

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the Corporation challenging the order dated 04.11.2009 passed in I.D.No.47/2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli¹ .

¶21

The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent/workman was appointed as a driver with the petitioner/Corporation. While he was working at the Bailhongal depot, articles of charge was issued against him, alleging that on 22.06.1999, he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a road side tree, due to which, the damage was caused to the bus, and three passengers’ sustained injuries. The respondent/workman replied to the articles of charge, stating that there were certain defects in the steering of the bus, and the same was detached at the time of accident. Following the enquiry conducted, the

¶22

1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 06.07.2001, imposed the punishment of withholding his two annual increments permanently with cumulative effect, and also ordered to recovery of one month’s salary towards the damages caused to the bus. At the instance of the workman, the matter was referred for conciliation under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947² . Upon the failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred for adjudication under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act.

¶26

The respondent/workman filed the claim petition and the petitioner/Corporation has filed objections to the same. Vide order dated 04.11.2009, the Tribunal, partly allowed the reference and passed the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

“The reference made by the Karnataka Government U/Sec. 10(1)(d) of I.D. Act i.e. I.D. No.47/2005 is partly allowed.

¶29

2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The punishment order passed by the respondent bearing No.NWKT/BGM/TR/ACDT/1756 dated 6-72001 is partly set aside and modified.

¶34

The order of recovering one month’s salary of the first party towards damage caused to the bus is upheld.

¶35

The order of with holding two ensuing increments of the first party with cumulative effect permanently is set aside.

¶36

The respondent is directed to make the calculation as per this award passed and to pay all with held arrears to the first party within one month from the date of this award coming into force on its publication.

¶37

Parties to bear their own costs.

¶38

Send a copy of this award to the Government for its publication U/Sec.17-A of I.D. Act, 1947.”

¶39

4. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed the present petition.

¶40

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference was not maintainable before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal ought

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

not to have entertained the same under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, as the matter was not covered under the Schedule-II and Schedule-III of the I.D. Act. It is also contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the nature of charges alleged against the workman. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the above petition and granting of the reliefs sought for.

¶44

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent justifying the order of the Tribunal contends that the objection with regard to lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the Tribunal. It is further contended that, having regard to the factual matrix of the matter, the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of punishment. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶45

The submissions made by both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

has been perused. The question that arise for

¶49

consideration is:

¶50

“Whether the award dated 04.11.2009 passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.47/2005 is liable to be interfered with by this Court in the present writ petition?

¶51

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner, in the present writ petition, has specifically raised the ground that the dispute ought not to have been entertained under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, and the entertainment of the reference suffers lack of jurisdiction, since the matter is not covered under the Schedule-II and Schedule-III of the I.D. Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note here that in the statement of objections filed by the Corporation before the Tribunal, a copy of which has been made available by the learned counsel for the parties, the Corporation has not taken any specific defence regarding the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to entertain the reference. For the first time, it is impermissible for the petitioner to raise contention with regard to jurisdiction in

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

the present writ petition. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected.

¶55

It is pertinent to note here that the Tribunal,

¶56

while appreciating the relevant factual matrix of the matter, has noticed the log sheet (Ex.W2), wherein, it was written that there was jerk in the steering and that the steering came out to the hands of the driver. The Tribunal has also noticed the motor vehicle report (Ex.M7), wherein, it is stated that the steering mechanism panel board was damaged. Noticing the same, the Tribunal, has recorded a finding that the accident did not solely occurr due to rash and negligent driving of the workman, but due to mechanical defect. However, noticing that if there was a mechanical defect, the workman ought to have refused to go on duty, the Tribunal upheld the finding of the enquiry. The Tribunal further held that, as the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct, the order with holding two increments with cumulative effect deserves to be set

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10647 WP No. 60049 of 2011

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

aside, while the direction for recovery of one month’s salary towards the damage caused to the bus was upheld.

¶60

It is clear and forthcoming from the aforementioned that the Tribunal has adequately considered the material on record, and has rightly affirmed the finding of the enquiry that the charges have been perused while interfering with the punishment imposed.

¶61

Keeping in mind the scope of interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the order passed by the Tribunal is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered with.

¶62

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as being

¶63

devoid of merit.

¶64

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶65

PMP CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

The Divisional Controller, v. Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Controller, v. Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dadapeer Bhanuvalli S/O. Shabbir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sangavva W/O Late Veerabhadrappa Chinivalar Vs Karnataka Road Development

Smt.Meenaxi Narashima Mavarkar Vs Ganapati Thaleppa Sanadi

Divisional Controller Vs Ravi S/O. Mahaveer Gundappanavar

M/S Renuka Gas Service Vs Mallappa M Lumachye

The Divisional Controller, Nekrtc, Koppal Vs Rachappa S/O.Basappa Kundkur