Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammad Amanulla vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 15 February, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15% DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO, 40010 zou. o . Between: . SRI MOHAMMAD AMANUL LA AGED ABOUT SS YEARS S/O LATE SRISILAR AHMED «=.» CONDUCTOR, i OTH BLOCK KUMBAR PET DARGA MOHALLA BAGE PALL KOLAR DISTRICT (BY spa adasuGaanva buat. ab FOR M/S SUBBARAO & CO) AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC KOLAR DIVISION _ KOLAR .. RESPONDENT
- (ay SF SRI SUBASHCHANDRA, ADV. FOR SRI L GOVINDRAJ ) ; THs WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 926 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.17.1.07 & THE 'AWARD DT..3.4.09 IN ID.NO.47/05 VIDE ANN-F & J ON H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU!
- "anmexures apperided to the petition.
THE FILE FO THE I ADDL. LABOUR COURT, AT BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE" COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER . .
Workman is calling in question the onder and | award passed by the Il Additional Labour Court, Bangalore dated 17.1 2007 folding « domestic enquiry conducted by the Corporation as fair and proper and the award dated 3.4.2009. rejecting the dispute at Annexures F and J respectively.
2, "Heard Sri 4 Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Subashchandra, oe learned counsel fot respondent Corporation appearing A on behalf of Sri L Govimdaraj. Perused the impugned order and award as also the claim statement, counter ~ statement, order of the disciplinary authority and other we COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
3. Petitioner was a permanent employce in respondent/Corporation and while he was on duty 'in conducting the bus from Virajpet to Bagepall, said vehicle was intercepted by the 'checking squat and it | was found that petitioner had failed to isg1:e 'tickets to 10 passengers despite collecting fare of Re. 6/- from.
each of the passengers, Articles of charges came to be issued on 26.4.2000 and afer considering the reply submitted on 65, 2004 'Annexare B, disciplinary authority ordered for eoxducting domestic enquiry and accordingly, domestic enquiry was conducted and it was held that charges levelled against the petitioner wae proved, On 1 3. 2008, second showcause notice came to
- be issued and after considering the reply submitted by
- the 'petitioner/ workman, disciplinary authority by its order dated 25.4.2005 --- Annexure "C" passed an order : of dismissal from service against the petitioner. A ~ dispute was raised by filing a claim etatement under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the a 'HH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU.
Labour Court, Bangalore and on service of notice, respondent/Corporation appeared and filed its statement of objections. Parties tendered evidence and analysing the pleadings and cherges, by ite award dated :
3.4.2009 rejected the dispute and same has been called in question. Labour Court had framed 2 . preliminary igsue as to whether domestic enquiry held against the workman was fair and proper end answered the same in the affirmative by it onder dated 17.1,2007 which is also called in question & iy the peiitioner herein.
4. lt is the conterition of Mr. S B Mukkanappa that in the domestic enquiry conducted, sufficient
- opportunity. has 'not been given and there 3 ' contravention of Regulation 23 of C & D Regulations of the Corporation and this aspect has not been "gansidered by the Labour Court in the order dated 171,207. He would further contend that workman had taken a specific defence that while the petitioner 1e COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT was in the process of issuing the tickets, checking officials had checked the bus and they had snatched the tray ticket and way bill from petitioner/ worknaar, and this defence was not at all considered by the abou court. As such, he contends orcer of the latour court is | erroneous. He would also contend, that alleged pest history never being a part of the charge sheet, 'came to be considered while 1 imposing the order of punishment and petitioner had no. opportunity | to defend the allegation with regard to past conduct. Ae auch, he secks for seting -aside the award of the labour court.
5. Per contra, > Sri Subashchandra, learned counsel for reopondent Corporation would defend the
- onder passed by labour court and seeks for dismissal of the petition.
7 6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order and award, it is noticed that labour court while passing a +H ECOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU! the order with regard to issue of DE being held fair and proper, found that order sheet of the domestic enquiry as recorded by the enquiry officer would go t to show thet sufficient opportunity was given to cross- examnine the management witnesses and on account o of raemo filed by | the delinquent employee himself stating, that he has nothing to cross-examine and not interested to "eross-
examine the management witness, 'gross examination was taken as Nil and workmen had only tendered his defence statement. After the crose <"amination came to be closed and « at the reigest oF the workman, enquiry was adjourned by granting 40 days time to enable the workman to file kis deferce statement and only on the defence statement 'being submitted as per Ex.M.11,
- enquiry was concluded and it was found by the Labour © Court that" 'workman had in hia own handwriting submitted that the enquiry may be closed stating that | - : : except his defence statement, he has no other statement "to make. Recording these facts and after considering the entire material on record, labour court haa come to v ~ the enquiry officer is perverse in nature"?
COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT & conclusion by its order dated 17.1.2007 that domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was fic. and proper. In view of the discussion made herein abow, order of the Labour Court dated 17.1. 2007 a at Aunenie F cannot be held to be suffering from any 'errors. (or | infirmities what-so-ever. | Accordingly, the: same is hereby affirmed by rejecting, the contention | raised by workman in this regard, -- _
7. After having enswered the issue on domestic enquiry ae fein and 'proper, 'workman got himself examined ard got marked S$ documents as Ex.W.1 to W.5. Corporation also examined 1 witness as MW1 and got miorked Exs.M. i to M.13. Domestic enquiry having
- heen held Qs fair and proper, only issue open for the _ consideration by the labour court was as to, "Whether the order of dismissal was passed in order to victimise ; 'the workman and as to whether the findings given by a be H COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUF
8. The records would disclose that checking equad had issued Fx.M.6 - an offence memo and workman had gen his reply as EX.M.7 and the fact of unpuntched tickets being available was also proved as | per Ex.M.8 which was sezed from workman and the | way bill - Ex.M.9 would - disclose that the checking squad had made a shara, "Way bill regarding non-issue of tickets to passenger". 'In fact, checking squad has also recorded statements of the passengers, their names and signatures os per Ex.M.10 travelling in the said bus on the date of check conducted by Squad. In fact, deferice staternent Bx.M.11 ix contrary to the reply given by the workmen to the charge sheet Ex.M.4. Further, documents produced before the labour court would
- clearly, roe to show that charges levelled against the
- petitioner was 'duly proved.
9 Insofar aa the proportionality of the ~ punishment imposed is concerned, it was noticed by the labour court that petitioner was having 111 past cases Ae COURT OF KARNATAKAHIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT against him and inspite of imposing with a keser punishment on all these previous occassions, workman had neither corrected himself nor improved hie conduct. Having found that workman is incorrigible and 'taking : ; into consideration the past misconduct viz., where the | petitioner/ workman had been imposed. writh Ieser | punishment, Corporation has thought fit to io remove ve the petitioner from service by dismissing him from service, . Said order is fully justifiable as e beld by the labour court and it does not call for i ix terfi we at the hands of thie Court = iri. 1 serciae . of extre-ordinary jurisdiction. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No cost. oe mn Sd/-
JUDGE