Karnataka High Court
Shri R S Sudhakar vs The Chief Traffic Manager Bangalore ... on 2 December, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2017 LAB. I. C. 496, 2017 (1) AKR 241 (2017) 3 KCCR 250, (2017) 3 KCCR 250
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.14694 OF 2008 (L - KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. R.S. SUDHAKAR
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O R.S. RAMAIAH
R/A #5, 1ST CROSS
MODEL COLONY
YESHAWANTHAPUR
BANGALORE - 560 022 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CENTRAL OFFICES
K.H.ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.SUBHASH CHANDRA, ADV. FOR
SRI. L.GOVINDARAJ, ADV.)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226s
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
2
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 18.06.2008, PASSED IN
I.D.NO.225/00 BY THE III ADDL. LABOUR COURT AT
BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE - G, UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-workmen, who joined the respondent- corporation as a Conductor in the year 1992 is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 18.06.2008 passed in I.D.No.225/2000 on the file of the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore dismissing the claim statement filed by the petitioner-workmen under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has joined the respondent-corporation in the year 1992 and on 27.05.1997, when he was on duty on route No.272 in vehicle No.F-199, the vehicle came to be intercepted by the checking squad and made certain allegations against the petitioner and served a charge memo to the effect that out of 63 passengers in the bus, the petitioner had reissued 7 3 tickets of 2.50 paisa denomination, 8 tickets of Rs.3/- denomination, 10 tickets of Rs.3.50 denomination and the petitioner neither issued tickets nor collected the fare from 4 passengers at the rate of Rs.2.50.
3. On receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances for the alleged charge. Not satisfied with the reply made by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority initiated enquiry proceedings. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and after considering the entire material on record, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 23.05.2000 holding that the petitioner is guilty of the charges. Thereafter, along with the report, a show cause notice was issued on 01.06.2000, for which he has submitted the reply on 01.07.2000. It is submitted that the respondent without looking the defense of the petitioner has blindly accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service by the order dated 16.09.2000.
4
4. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner raised a dispute before the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D.No.225/2000 under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, by the impugned award dated 18.06.2008 dismissed the claim statement filed by the petitioner-workmen under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Sri Naveen, learned counsel on behalf of Sri S.B.Mukkannappa for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner has not admitted either reissue of tickets to the passengers or reissued unconcerned tickets to any of the passengers and has also not admitted the fact that fare had been collected. However, the petitioner has explained the circumstances under which the tickets were issued to the said four passengers 5 as evident from the reply submitted to the charge memo at Annexure-A and also replied to the articles of charges. There is consistent stand taken by the petitioner to the alleged charge. But, the Labour Court without properly appreciating the defense of the petitioner with reference to discrepancies pointed out has proceeded to pass the impugned erroneous award. He further contended that in the charge memo, it has been stated that 25 passengers were holding reissued tickets and four passengers were traveling without tickets despite paying the fare to the petitioner. The said averments is without any basis. The witness MW-1 during the course of examination admitted that he had no knowledge of reissued 3 tickets of Rs.3.50 denomination. Even the Enquiry Officer has not given any finding in respect of the said charge memo and the petitioner has not committed any irregularities and misconduct as referred to in the articles of charge and his defense is also supported by the duty Driver and the evidence of the petitioner is believable as the witness was 6 remained unchallenged by the respondent-corporation. Therefore, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the Labour Court rejecting the claim petition is contrary to material on record. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Sri H. Subhash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for Sri L.Govindraj sought to justify the impugned award passed by the Labour Court and contended that the Labour Court has held that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was fair and proper and the petitioner had past history of 92 old cases, out of which 7 cases were 'red mark' cases. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire material on record held the charges are proved. The disciplinary authority considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the finding of the Enquiry Officer has removed the petitioner from service, the same is reaffirmed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned award 7 passed by the Labour Court under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, sought to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had joined the respondent-corporation as Conductor in the year 1992. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-workmen had involved in as many as 92 old cases, out of which 7 cases were 'red mark' cases. In spite of earlier past conduct, the petitioner-workmen has not improved. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he was in possession of issued tickets unauthorisedly in denomination of Rs.2.50x7 except ticket no.320777, denomination of Rs.3 x 5, denomination of 3 x 3 and denomination of 3.5 x 10 and also failed to issue tickets of Rs.2.50 x4, despite collecting requisite fare. According to the respondent-corporation, they are very serious misconducts resulting in initiating disciplinary proceedings 8 against the petitioner. The petitioner was also permitted to take the assistance of the co-worker of his discretion before the enquiry proceedings. In the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner-workmen, the Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner is proved.
9. The Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, recorded a specific finding that the management has proved that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner-workmen was fair and proper and also held that the mandamus is justified in holding that the first party was guilty of the charge and also further held that the management was justified in removing the petitioner-workmen from service in terms of the dismissal order dated 16.09.2000.
10. Though the workmen sought to justify the circumstance, he has admitted the charge indirectly. The workmen has not made any personal allegation against the 9 checking squad and they have discharged their duty by intercepting the bus during the regular course of their official business. The explanation offered by the petitioner was, at one stage, it is contended that some children were playing with old tickets and the passengers surrendered the old tickers to the inspecting authority. The pleadings of the claim statement proves the fact that the inspecting authority have seized the old tickers at the time of their check. Under those circumstance, the explanation offered by the petitioner-workmen that the children in the bus were playing with the old tickets appears to be imaginary. If that was the case, the passenger would not have surrendered those tickets to the inspecting authority. Therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioner- workmen cannot be accepted, as rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court.
11. Insofar as non issue of tickets to some of the passengers, it is the contention of the petitioner-workmen 10 that the passengers were dredging to purchase the tickets and the bus came to be checked at that particular point of time clearly indicates that the petitioner-workmen has not issued tickets to those passengers, in spite of collecting the fare amount. When he had collected the amount, there is no question of dragging tickets by the passengers as alleged by the workmen. Therefore, it clearly indicates that despite collection of fare, the petitioner-workmen did not issue tickets to those passengers though, the passengers have paid the penalty and gave statement before the inspecting authority. Therefore, the charge made against the petitioner-workmen is proved with regard to non issue of tickets. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had a track record of past history of 92 old cases, out of which 7 were 'red mark' cases. It is also the case of the respondent- corporation that the workmen was selling old tickets to the passengers and has caused financial loss to the corporation.
11
12. Taking into consideration the past conduct of the petitioner in involvement of 92 old cases and out of which, 7 were 'red mark' cases, the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the award passed by the Labour Court concurring with the finding of fact with regard to the alleged charge is based on the material evidence on record. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Labour Court exercising the power under writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST