Dismissed¶58

Divisional Controller v. Ravi S/O. Mahaveer Gundappanavar

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2025WP/68380/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NWKRTC/KSRTC disciplinary proceedings against driver; ticketless/excess passengers on 'Jatra special' bus; alleged pilferage of KSRTC revenue; articles of charge 11.03.1997; domestic enquiry; benefit of doubt; reduction of three increments with cumulative effect; punishment order dated 27.2.1998; delay of nine years in raising industrial dispute; reference under section 10(1)(d) Industrial Disputes Act 1947; Industrial Tribunal Hubli award dated 26.08.2010 upheld; monetary benefits with 6% interest; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner-Corporation; the writ petition challenging the Tribunal's award was dismissed as devoid of merits. ¶58

Divisional Controller Vs Ravi S/O. Mahaveer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

DHARWAD BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 68380 OF 2011 (L-KSRTC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NWKRTC BELGAUM DIVISION, BELGAUM, R/BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SHRI RAVI S/O. MAHAVEER GUNDAPPANAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HANAMANNAVAR GALLI, ANAGOL, BELGAUM.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR

¶17

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

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 26-08-2010 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AND PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HUBLI IN ID.NO.46/2008 WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-D.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present petition is filed by the Corporation-Management calling in question the award dated 26.08.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubli¹ in I.D.No.46/2008.

¶25

The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present petition are that the respondent/workman was a driver of the Corporation. That on 20.02.1992, he was allotted to drive a bus which was a “Jatra special” being operated in between Mohanga to Belgaum. That no conductor is required to travel in the said bus. That the ground booking conductor at Mohanga had collected the requisite fare from the passengers who boarded the bus at Mohanga. That the workman was not suppose to pick up any passengers in between Mohanga to Belgaum. A checking squad of the Corporation boarded the bus at Sutagatti cross and found that five ticket less passengers were found traveling in the bus. Hence, pursuant to the report of the checking squad, articles of charge dated 11.03.1997 was issued to the workman which was replied by him. Domestic enquiry was conducted and it was found that the charge No.1 was partly established and charge No.2 is not established. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment of reducing three increments of the workman with cumulative effect.

¶26

1 Hereinafter referred as ‘Tribunal’

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Being aggrieved, the workman raised the dispute before the Tribunal. The reference was opposed by the corporation, interalia, on the ground that the dispute is raised after a lapse of nine years. The Tribunal by it’s order dated 26.08.2010 allowed the reference and passed the following order:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

“The reference bearing No. KA 67 IDM 2008 dated 28.1.2008 under section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under Secretary to Government, Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby allowed. The order of punishment bearing No. NWC: BGM: DP T-432(92): 2042 dated 27.2.1998 passed by the management (Disciplinary Authority) as ordered in Ex.M.14 (Order No. NWKT: BDMDIV: DP: 432(92): 2042 dated 27.2.1998 as noted in the reference) reducing three increments of the workman with cumulative effect is hereby set aside. The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits which are denied on account of the order of punishment imposed against him. The management is directed to calculate the monetary loss and pay the same to the workman within six moths from the date of publication of this award with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date from which it was denied till the date of payment. In the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Copy of this award be sent to the Government for publication as contemplated under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.”

¶37

Being aggrieved, the present petition is filed.

¶38

It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for

¶39

the petitioner that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the dispute after a laspse of nearly ten years. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer with regard to the charge No.1 alleged against the workman.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent seeks for dismissal of the writ petition contending that Tribunal has adequately appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and the said award of the Tribunal ought not to be interfered by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶41

The Tribunal while appreciating the material on record has recorded the following findings:

¶42

“ 14. Ex.M.12 which is the report of the Enquiry Officer would show that he has referred to charge No. 1 and 2 therein. Charge No.1 in Ex.M.12 is to the effect that as against 90+1 passengers certified by the ground conductor there were 95+1 passengers and thereby the workman attempted to pilfer the KSRTC revenue. Charge

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

No.2 is to the effect that there were 14 other passengers travelling from Mohanga to Belgaum and the workman allowed them to get down and attempted to pilfer the KSRTC revenue. Charge No.1 has been partly proved as could be seen from Ex.M.12. It is specifically found in page 3 of Ex.M. 12 that according to the Enquiry Officer there was possibility of passengers boarding the bus and therefore the workman is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Upon perusal of this finding it is clear that there was no convincing evidence to prove that there was an attempt on the part of the workman to pilfer the KSRTC revenue. Since charge No.2 has not proved it is needless to say that the workman has committed any act of attempting to pilfer the KSRTC Ex.M.14 shows that the Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After having gone through Ex.M.14 it appears that the Disciplinary Authority has not meticulously gone through Ex.M.12. The Disciplinary Authority having concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer ought not to have thought of imposing punishment. Ex.M. 14 shows that the same is the out come of non application of mind on the part of the Disciplinary Authority.

¶46

15. In the course of evidence the workman has stated in his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief that there were two doors to the said bus and that since it was "Jatra" there was no possibility for him to control the passengers and that without his knowledge some passengers must have boarded the bus. In the circumstances in which the workman was placed the said stand appears to be

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

convincing one. After having gone through his entire cross-examination I find that nothing worthy to lend support to the case of the management has been brought out. There is nothing placed by the management to hold that the workman was found with excess cash. In the absence of the same it becomes difficult to hold that there was any kind of attempt on the part of the workman to pilfer the KSRTC revenue. Therefore, it has to be held that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Regarding delay in raising the dispute the delay becomes insignificant keeping in view of the fact that the same should not come in the way of dispensation of justice. Accordingly I answer issues 2 to 5 as indicated above.

¶50

(emphasis supplied)

¶51

It is clearly forthcoming from the aforementioned that the Tribunal has noticed the explanation of the workman that there were two doors to the bus and since it was a “Jatra”, there is no possibility for him to control the passengers and without his knowledge, passengers boarded the bus. It is further noticed by the Tribunal that no material was placed on record by the Management to demonstrate that the workman was found with excess cash. Hence, Tribunal recorded a finding that the reply/stand of the workman is a convincing one.

¶52

With regard to the delay, the Tribunal has noticed that the aspect of delay ought not come in the way of dispensation of justice.

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10645 WP No. 68380 of 2011

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

It is pertinent to note here that the enquiry officer has held that charge No.2 was not proved and held that charge No.1 was partly proved by noticing that there were five excess passengers at the time of checking than the passengers boarded at Mohanga. In this regard, the explanation of the workman has been noticed by the Tribunal and rightly held to be convincing, as also keeping in mind the fact that no excess cash has been recovered.

¶57

The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference is made after inordinate delay of nearly nine years and that the award of the Tribunal ought to be interefered is also not liable to be accepted having regard to the fact that there is no material forthcoming to prove the charge made against the workman. Hence, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the aspect of delay ought not to come in the way of dispensation of justice.

¶58

In view of the aforementioned, the above writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits.

¶59

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶60

HMB CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Divisional Controller v. Ravi S/O. Mahaveer Gundappanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divisional Controller v. Ravi S/O. Mahaveer Gundappanavar

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

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

The Divisional Controller, Vs Chandrashekhar Veerappa Talwar

M/S Renuka Gas Service Vs Mallappa M Lumachye

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