Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs B S Manjesh

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD 30.10.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN I.D.A.NO.11/2016 [ANNEXURE-B] IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DIRECTION TO PAY 50% OF THE BACKWAGES.

¶17

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21^ST JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 -

¶19

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

This petition is filed assailing the Award dated 30.10.2017 in I.D.A. No.11/2016 on the file of Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. In terms of the said Award, the Labour Court has allowed the application under Section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947') in part. The penalty of dismissal dated 26.07.2016 imposed on respondent/workman is set aside. The respondent/workman is directed to be reinstated to his original post with 50% backwages and consequential benefits.

¶24

The respondent faced the domestic enquiry on the charges of disrupting the bus services on 11.10.2014 when he was discharging his duties at K.R.Nagar depot at Mysuru Rural Division. The admitted fact is that on 11.10.2014, driver of the petitioner–Corporation namely H.K.Suresh committed suicide in the bus. The petitioner alleged that the respondent who was also on duty on that day along with other employees protested and, because of which the schedule of 56 buses from the said

¶25

3 -

¶26

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶27

depot was disrupted. In this backdrop the disciplinary enquiry was held and respondent was removed from service. In the dispute raised before the Labour Court, the claim made by the respondent/workman is accepted in part as noted above.

¶28

In this backdrop, the employer is before this Court

¶29

assailing the award.

¶30

The last sentence in the synopsis to the petition reads as under:

¶31

"Hence this petition in so far as it relates to the direction

¶32

to pay 50% of the backwages".

¶33

The relevant portion of the prayer in the petition

¶34

reads as under:

¶35

"Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the award dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in I.D.A. No.11/2016 (Annexure-B) insofar as it relates to the direction to pay 50% of the backwages."

¶36

The Court is of the view that the Award directing reinstatement has attained finality. The petition by the employer is confined to the award directing 50% of the backwages.

¶37

4 -

¶38

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶39

In ground No. 9, the first sentence reads as under:

¶40

"The Labour Court held that the charge is proved."

¶41

At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the finding of the Labour Court in the Award at paragraph number 7.1.2 which reads as under:

¶42

"7.1.2 Having regard to the materials on record, this Court holds that even if there are some mistakes, it cannot be termed as an act of misconduct. No doubt, misconduct is preceded by mistakes, but all mistakes never leads to misconduct."

¶43

Thus, the Court is of the view that the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the charges are not proved.

¶44

It is noticed from the award that the Labour Court

¶45

has set-aside the penalty on the ground that other employees facing similar charge of disruption of the bus schedule were let off with minor penalty. In this background, it is urged that the Labour Court could not have awarded 50% backwages to the workman because other employees who were allegedly involved in the same incident have been awarded lesser penalty or have been exonerated.

¶46

5 -

¶47

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary enquiry against each employee was a separate enquiry and against some of the employees even the disciplinary authority was different as some of the employees were transferred post the incident.

¶49

For this reason, it is urged that the Labour Court could not have adopted the principle of parity.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the evidence is led to establish the charges and the enquiry officer has recorded a finding that charges are proved and the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed the penalty of dismissal. Labour Court after having recorded a finding that the petitioner is guilty of mistakes proceeded to impose lesser penalty on the premise that every mistake is not a misconduct. It is urged that the Labour Court could not have directed 50% backwages in a situation where the Court has found that the employee has committed mistake.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent-workman would defend the impugned award. It is submitted that, the impugned award directed reinstatement of the respondent by setting aside the dismissal order dated 26.07.2016 and directed

¶52

6 -

¶53

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶54

payment of 50% of the backwages with consequential benefits. Though the workman is aggrieved by the part of the award declining 50% backwages, the workman has accepted the award as he is financially not in a position to challenge the same.

¶55

It is also urged that the petitioner-Corporation has only questioned the award directing 50% backwages and consequential benefits and it cannot urge the contention to set aside the award relating to reinstatement.

¶56

In support of the contention, learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the Labour Court has assigned sufficient reasons to pass the impugned award. Labour Court has taken note of the fact that similarly placed employees who were subjected to disciplinary enquiry based on the same report relating to the alleged incident, have been awarded lesser punishment and the respondent-workman cannot be subjected to a higher penalty of dismissal from employment.

¶57

It is also urged on behalf of the respondent that the alleged incident has not taken place and the alleged incident is not established to record a finding that the respondent-

¶58

7 -

¶59

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶60

workman is responsible for alleged disruption of bus schedules between 9:50 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. on 11.10.2014.

¶61

Learned counsel would also urge that on the date of the death of the driver, around 50 people had gathered in the bus stand . The employees and the public in and around the place were shocked and dismayed on account of the death of one of the drivers who allegedly committed suicide. The employees of the petitioner-Corporation were emotionally disturbed and the delay in operating the buses on account of the death of one of the drivers, made the public to gather in front of the bus stand, which resulted in disruption of the bus schedule, as such, the respondent cannot be held responsible for the disruption of the bus schedule.

¶62

The Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶63

the Bar and perused the records.

¶64

21. The admitted facts of the case are as under:

¶65

On 11.10.2014, a driver by name H.K. Suresh committed suicide in the stationed bus inside the depot. It came to the notice of another driver by name Shivaraj Cahannagi, around 6:30 a.m. As the news of the death spread, the employees, including the drivers, gathered in the bus stand. The news also

¶66

8 -

¶67

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶68

reached the Union leaders, office bearers and the members of the Union, and they also gathered at the place of incident. On account of the death of the driver, which happened inside the bus, the buses which were scheduled around that time did not depart from the bus stand.

¶69

The incident of this nature is unusual. Since many buses did not leave the depot on time because of the incident referred to above, the passengers in the bus stand had to wait and many people gathered around the depot gate. It is also noticed from the records that, the driver who committed suicide allegedly possessed suicide note in his pocket and it appears that many people believed that the driver who committed suicide had quoted the alleged harassment by the Management. It appears that some of the workers insisted that suicide note has to be read and the reasons for suicide be disclosed.

¶70

In this unusual incident, it is alleged that the respondent and other employees, namely Ravindra, Satish, Sudarshan, Arun Kumar, Mahantesh Singady, B.S. Venkatesh and Nagaraju and along with other technical staff held a strike between 9:50 a.m. to 11:25 a.m. and disrupted the bus schedule.

¶71

9 -

¶72

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶73

As already noticed, some of the employees against whom the charge sheet is filed for the same offence were transferred to different places and disciplinary enquiries were held against those employees by the disciplinary authority in the said depots. It is also noticed that based on the evidence led before the said disciplinary authorities, findings were recorded holding that those employees are also responsible for the disruption in the bus schedule and some of the employees were let off with minor punishment as the disciplinary authority has taken a view that the proved misconduct does not warrant penalty of dismissal.

¶74

However, in the instant case, the disciplinary authority took a view that the misconduct alleged is proved and the same warrants penalty of dismissal.

¶75

The Labour Court having taken note of the fact that the other employees against whom the disciplinary action was initiated were let off with minor punishment and the charge against all of the employees being the same, respondentworkman could not have been imposed with a penalty of dismissal.

¶76

10 -

¶77

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶78

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation would urge that the view taken by the disciplinary authority as against other employees cannot be a view against the present respondent on the premise that, inquiry itself was different and evidence led in those inquiries were different. This contention though appears attractive, one has to bear in mind that the basis for holding the disciplinary inquiry against all the employees by different disciplinary authorities (on account of transfer of other employees) is the same. And the basic facts alleged against the said employees are one and the same.

¶79

It is also noticed that the disciplinary authority who conducted enquiry against Mahantesh Singady has given a clean chit to Mahantesh Singady. Though, it is possible to urge that the evidence that was placed before the disciplinary authority against other employees were different from the evidence placed against the present respondent-employee, the petitioner-Corporation has not produced the evidence led before the other employees.

¶80

It is also relevant to notice that the unusual event of suicide in the bus in the depot probably might have compelled the respondent-employee and others not to attend to the work and to wait for the cause for the death before

¶81

11 -

¶82

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶83

proceeding on duty. In such a situation, the intention may not be to disrupt the bus schedule or to cause inconvenience to passengers or to cause loss or embarrassment to the employer.

¶84

In this backdrop, the Labour Court has concluded that there is mistake on the part of the employee which may not amount to misconduct. And accordingly, the Labour Court has modified the penalty and awarded lesser penalty by taking into consideration other employees who are guilty of charges in the same incident are let off with minor penalty.

¶85

The Court is of the view that this is one of the plausible views in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶86

In the present set of facts of the case, the Court is of the view that, the view taken by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse so as to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction of Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Labour Court directed reinstatement on 30.10.2017, by denying 50% backwages and awarding 50% backwages.

¶87

It is also noticed that the petitioner-Corporation alleges revenue loss of Rs.1,67,897/- from the alleged incident. The respondent was dismissed from the services with effect

¶88

12 -

¶89

WP No. 37048 of 2018

¶90

from 26.07.2016. It is also noticed as against another employee there is denial of backwages to the extent of 50%. And in both the cases, the award denying 50% backwages has attained finality. That being the position, the Court does not find any reason to allow the petition for denying 50% of the backwages as urged by the petitioner-Corporation.

¶91

34. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶92

Sd/-

¶93

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶94

GVP

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B S Manjesh

Case brief

What is this about?

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B S Manjesh

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

Mahadev Sanganabasappa Sampagar Vs the Addl. Commissioner Provident Fund

The Management Vs Balachandra

Mr v D Rajanna Vs Smt T R Rashmi

M/S Vivek Shankar Architects Vs the State of Karnataka

The Executive Engineer (v) Vs Manjunath

Sri B N Ramachandra Vs Arya Vyshya Mandali