Karnataka High Court
Sri Mayee Gowda vs The Divisional Controller on 31 July, 2012
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B Adi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B ADI
WRIT PETITION NO.1044/2012(L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN :
SRI MAYEE GOWDA
S/O LATE MAYEE GOWDA
R/AT KURANAGERE VILLAGE
CHAKLUR POST
CHANNAPATNA TALUK,
RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
( BY SRI.SURESH M.G. FOR
SRI. K SRINIVASA & STM ASSTS.ADVS.,)
AND :
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC CITY DIVISION,
BANNIMANTAPA ROAD,
MYSORE. ...RESPONDENT
( BY SRI. K.S. BHARATH KUMAR, ADV. )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH IMPUGNED AWARD
DTD.25.10.10 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT,
MYSORE IN IID.NO.78/2003, VIDE ANNEX-G TO THE WP.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This Writ Petition is by the workman, questioning the award in I.I.D.No.78/2003 dated 25th October 2010.
2. Petitioner - workman has raised a dispute under Section 10(4- A) of the Industrial Disputes Act against the order of dismissal.
3. Case of the petitioner was that, he was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent - Corporation. On 2.2.2002, he was conducting the bus plying between Mysore City Bus Stand and Mavanahalli. About 48+2 passengers were travelling in the said bus. In the first trip, Traffic Controller at Mysore had made entries of the tickets in the way bill in respect of tickets of denomination of Rs.5/-, Rs.5.50 paise and Rs.6/-. The opening numbers were 824, 630 and
450. Though the bus was checked at Udbur Gate, however, the checking squad did not find any default. Two passengers were failed to take the tickets at the boarding place, they paid the penalty. On the basis of the said payment of penalty, a report was submitted by the 3 checking squad interalia stating that, 13 passengers were travelling without ticket of denomination of Rs.5/-, Rs.5.50 paise and Rs.6/-. The checking squad did not check the cash bag to find out the truth also. When there were only 48+2 passengers, the checking squad recording as 63+2 passengers and alleged that, 6 passengers were travelling without ticket of Rs.6/-, 4 passengers without ticket of Rs.5/- and another 4 passengers without ticket of Rs.5.50 paise.
4. Though the said claim petition was opposed by the Corporation interalia alleging that, 14 persons were travelling without ticket, the Labour Court considering the nature of enquiry held that the enquiry is fair and proper. However, in its award has considered the statement of two witnesses examined before the Enquiry Officer, the said two witnesses were stated to be the passengers. Both the passengers have stated that, when they got down, the checking squad collected the tickets and they also collected penalty from them and thereafter they returned the ticket. However, the Labour Court only on the ground that, the statement of both the witnesses differ each other 4 held that, the charge is proved and accordingly, confirmed the order of dismissal by dismissing the reference.
5. It is not in dispute that, two passengers were examined before the Enquiry Officer. The initial burden of proving the charge was on the Corporation. Except the reliance placed on the statement of two passengers, there is no other material to prove that, there were 63+2 passengers. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, only 48+2 passengers were travelling.
6. Without there being any corresponding evidence to prove the charge, the Labour Court, just because the statement of two witnesses differ each other, has held that the charge is proved. When the initial burden of proving the charge is on the Corporation and the said burden having not been discharged, the finding of the Labour Court holding that the charge is proved, is perverse to the material on record. The Labour Court even if it holds that the enquiry is fair and proper, it is required to consider the evidence as regard to the victimization, that has 5 also not been considered. Further, the evidence produced by both the parties are also not referred. In my opinion, the matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The award dated 25 th October 2010 in I.I.D.No.78/2003 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Labour Court for fresh disposal.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-