Limbaji S./O Siddoji Gowli vs The North East Road Transport on 12 April, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Limbaji S./O Siddoji Gowli vs The North East Road Transport on 12 April, 2010

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2010.:

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAN9  I C'  1'  

WRIT PETITION NO.80393 01% 2¢:'1VG::V(£!wK«$ﬁ:1-:(:)V',:":'V '_ 

BETWEEN

LIMBAJI S /0 SIDDOJI GOWLI,  '
AGED 43 YEARS, occ. NIL, , 
(EX. DRIVER) P.NO.4739_  
DEPOT NO.I3, GULBARGA3' 
R/O H.NO.1--33, TAVERGERA.  

TQ. & DIST. GU_L.BARGA:;.   ' ''V§'.I.PETITIONER

(BY SR1   
AND  

THE NORTH I§AIS'FVP§AR1\E;5f.T.AKA

 » ROAD "-TRANSPORT . CQRPORATION,
 I THRO"UGH'AIT'S_DIVISI0NAL
"CO§\IT'ROL_LER, 'GULBARGA DIVISION,

   - . I  . . . RESPONDENT

  (BY S1"-21 A1§.mI::5AH s ROJA. ADV.,)

 writ: petmon is fikzd under Articles 226 and

 ..._'2'27§of the Constitution. of India, praying to set aside the
--,g:Srder of Labour Court on issue No.1 passed in KID



Ix.)

No.l85/2004 dated 29.9.2007 which is at Annexure E
and etc.,

This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in

'B' group this day the court: made the following:  , -- V

ORDER

Heard the Counsel for the"»"peti«tioner< .¢lm_i_t1i~e counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioner was a Corporation. It is his .§ri.evarice_ the petitioner was assigned which had defectiVe'hV'brVakeis_ mechanical defects. T he petitioner"was% co::opelled~._to4.driVe the bus inspite of its condition on 'account "of "undue inﬂuence brought on lij'mVbyf:hi7s"superiorslwlind as misfortune would have hit tVh--e"b1.1s a steep incline had moved 2 _bacl<tvard_s,' uricontrollably. lnspite of the best efforts of petitioner he was unable to stop its movement and a_,s";._a"i'e;sult of which the bus had moved off the road.

--fca'u'sing injuries to several passengers and the :'"'\ . .

\'s.,;v"""'\\C;

Lu unfortunate death of two of them. On account of this accident, which was beyond control of the petitioner. and for no fault of his. disciplinary pro(teedingsyVw%§p§~4a,, initiated on the ground that the pet.itionerf.:hadc' H committed misconduct and by hismra'shi_ and negiigerit act had caused the death of two passengersp."a.;)a1'tA' causing injuries to others. Tiieipetitionerretﬁrasivipfound guilty of the charges authority had imposed the extreme disxinissal. The petitioner having 'raised:-.a dispute' ir'i"vt.--iis regard under the prov;i'sion's*industrial ijisputes Act, the matter was referred'-to 'adjuijdi'c'at:ion~*'before the Labour Court. The Labour has affirmed the order of is is sought to be challenged in the pxresfennt pfet.-ition.

'i_fhe.ViA.eou11se1 for the petitioner would submit vemeredfact: there were earlier accidents which had while the petitioner was discharging his duties / 33> could not be reason enough to hold that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct in the present circumstance which was the subject matter of enquiry. The V. position that the accident had occurred incline when the bus' had started rfioviiig b.ac~:kw_ard.aI1d was totally out of control of the petiiiioi'1er for»l.r.:oA' faultrcljfi if his has been glossed over. petitionerf'-ihas heen found guilty of rash and'*r;egl_igelnlt':clriifing, When' on the other hand the criminal' .__proceedingc§_;; ._ which were independently injthe acquittal of the petif;iolne'r* rash and negligent driving not «proved. The disciplinary proceedings liiiitiated "L"-snlidentical charges could not lh'aVe"heeriA found against the petitioner and even if it co--.uld;- thaft. the accident was on account of rash l andl1a.egl.i_gent~" driving of the petitioner, the extreme 4if""'.f"punishmeni: of dismissal from service, was disrproportioneite with the alleged act of misconduct and if l_4ltlii'e'refoi'e the finding of the Labour Court in affirming s »'_ : X \*-/l the order of punislmierit has resulted in grave miscarriage of _jL1st.ice. The Labour Court V.-has rnechanicaily accepted the argument that petitioner was guilty of earlier accidents thefrietitioiieri did not deserve any lenience in so fa1*a§~:>. the,:'0rder"of punishment was concerned and would further "sub'mi't V that neither could the rnisclonidtlct bed attributed to ciereliction of duty or of .i'ritvegi1*it3r.'lvwhich alone could have resulted in such extreme.vl1;iunir3l1nien.t_".~0f dismissal. There is no "hin_d..:Vtllie.petitioner to the punishr,£ient"irripost:€d' therelfovre would submit that the petition be '*~ " e 4,..._:the'Fcouns.el for the respondent would lireheineritiy "opposéellllllthe petition and would seek to ju stigfy t.he'»ord er of dismissal.

I__1'1't.hle above facts and circumstances. it is seen th:--its_whi}--e the acquittal of the petitioner in eriminal _' r._pr.olc'eedings arising out of the very same incident is not {:7 in dispute. The Labour Court was impressed by the rulings cited at the bar in support of the ease of.-the respondents which related to the integrity". workmen involved in disciplinary proceedings'; it t is Clear that the ratio of the decisionvofl-.the Court in the case of U _P Corporation .Vs. Vinod Kumar"'r£a:ported its 435 and Shankar M KRTC reported in ILR 2QO2 involving the integrity of *~._/found guilty of rnisappropriation of7tfVtindsy"of thewemployer Corporation. the sanievcould not:_jh_aVe_ll"be~en pressed into service in sustailfring piinishment of dismissal in so 'far ?--.the'"._petition'er is concerned. The mere oireu;:ns'tv,ari.ee that there were earlier accident cases it invollv*«ingy___vtl1e3fiietitioner by itself would not also attract extrelme punishment of dismissal when it is not ash-ow17.--7th21t. t11e3'e was rash and negligent driving. It is it :'_'V'Il0't'.:thC ease of the management that the petitioner was 5/ <1...»/' guilty of rash arid 1'1egliger1t. reversing of the bus which has resulted in the mishap. The admitted circumstance that the bus had moved backwards while riegotiati.ii'g_a steep incline and thereby t.he accident had Cannot be ruled out that there was mechanieal'-.fai1:i_;ire or _ lack of skill on the part of the bus to a stop. This cannot be cotintenanced. «being an act of rnisconducii or rash neglilgenltc 'driving. It was certainly an accident and cannot be characterized as an act ot'_rn-iscon.d1iet when there is no material:'lVey"lid'eriiee it was willful on the part of the petitioner; i_:Heri'cei~'the extreme punishment of disrnissalyis certainly disiljroportionate to the alleged act of mi'seoii7du"C,t,_ Thellllﬁetitioner having been sufficiently of employment over the years, it is _appro«pria'cte the petitioner be reinstated, however if H " ' ~--1yit.h{)ut any baekwages.

lijxfh

6. Amrordingly, the petition is ailoweci. Annexure E passed by the L.abq111- Court: is hereby quashed. he respondent Corporation is directed to 1'einstate--V..fthe.,A' petitioner without: any backwages, V' contirmiiiy of service and other c01f1~sequer1t_'1ai_beI1efifs.} YKL/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court