Karnataka High Court
The Management Of Ksrtc vs Sri M. Lokesh on 3 December, 2012
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.33201/2011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
The Management of KSRTC.,
Davanagere Division,
Davanagere,
Now represented by its Chief Law Officer,
Central Office, K.H. Road,
Bangalore.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri Hareesh Bhandary T. Adv.)
AND:
Sri M. Lokesh,
Conductor, Badge No.866,
Aged about 45 years,
Shimoga Depot, K.S.R.T.C.,
Davanagere Division,
Presently working at
K.S.R.T.C. Central Division.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri L. Shekar, Adv.)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, dated 4.10.2010
in I.D.No.104/2008 vide Annexure -F.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
On 4.4.1998, the respondent was conducting bus bearing No.F 294 attached to Shimoga depot plying between Shimoga and Bhadravathi. Checking squad intercepted the bus and noticed that 6 passengers travelling in the bus were not holding tickets. The respondent/conductor had not "issued the tickets and had not collected the fare" from the said passengers. Ticketless passengers were subjected to pay fine and the office memo/Ex.P3 was served on the conductor. The matter was reported to the Management as per Ex.P4. The Management without holding any enquiry passed an order on 9.7.1998, i.e., withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Workman having approached the Government as against the said action, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, after a lapse of about 10 years. Parties filed claim and counter statements, based on which, 5 issues were raised. Both parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal upon taking notice of the record of the case before it, answered issues 1 and 3 2 in the negative and issues 3 and 4 in the affirmative. As a result, it set aside the punishment imposed by the Management on the workman and held that the workman is entitled to monetary benefits denied, consequent on the order of punishment/withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The monetary benefit was directed to be paid with interest at 6% p.a. Assailing the said award, the Management has filed this writ petition.
2. Sri Hareesh Bhandary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the writ petition contended that, the reference ought to have been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay and unexplained laches and the view taken by the Tribunal, "that on account of non- challenging the order of reference, Management is barred from raising the plea of the matter having become stale on account of delay and laches", is arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel submitted that the awarding of monetary benefits with interest is also illegal and arbitrary. Learned 4 counsel placed reliance on an order dated 13.1.2012 passed in W.P.No.33199/2011.
3. Sri L.Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the view taken by the Tribunal and sought upholding of the impugned award. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the case of Hubert Lobo Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and others - 1997 (4) KLJ 524.
4. Perused the record. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the point for determination is, whether the impugned Award of the Tribunal warrants any interference?
5. Record would indicate that, on 4.4.1998 the respondent / workman was conducting the bus. Record shows that six persons were travelling in the bus without valid tickets. Workman had not collected fare and issued tickets. Ticketless passengers were penalized. When the matter was reported by the checking squad, there being a serious allegation, it was incumbent on the part of the 5 Management to have conducted an enquiry and proceeded against the workman in accordance with law. The same was not done and the workman was imposed with the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
6. In the case of Hubert Lobo (supra), this Court has held that, withholding of increment with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty. A Major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the decision of the Management, which had ordered the withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.
7. However, the materials brought on record would indicate that there is a misconduct on the part of the workman in not collecting fares and issuing tickets to 6 passengers. Keeping in view the explanation offered, which is not satisfactory, it is a case wherein a minor punishment of withholding one annual increment without 6 cumulative effect ought to have been ordered by the Management.
8. In the said view of the matter, the Tribunal is not justified in directing payment of monetary benefits with interest at 6% p.a., that too, when there was inordinate delay of more than 10 years in the reference being received by the Court for adjudication.
In the result, writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned Award is quashed. The action of the Management in imposing the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect being illegal, is also quashed. Keeping in view the record of the case and the nature of misconduct committed, the respondent/workman stands punished, by way of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner is directed to regulate the matter accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksj/-