Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport vs K K Chandrashekar on 27 August, 2014
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.2790 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MANGALORE DIVISION
BEJAL BUS STAND BUILDING
MANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)
AND:
K.K.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O.K.A. KUSHALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
NO.7TH HOSAKOTE VILLAGE AND POST
SHUNTIKOPPA ROUTE
SOMAVARA PETE
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.GOVINDARAJ, ADV.,)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 24.2.12 PASSED BY THE
2
LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE, IN ID R NO.6/11 VIDE
ANNX-F AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROU THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mangalore Division, Mangalore, (for short 'the Corporation') has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the award in I.D.R.No.6/2011 dated 24.2.2012, whereby the Labour Court, D.K., Mangalore, has directed reinstatement of the respondent/workman into service with continuity of service and 50% of back wages from the date of removal from service till reinstatement, less whatever the amount paid to him by virtue of his reinstatement as per the interim order passed by the High Court in the previous writ petition.
3
2. The respondent/workman was appointed as a trainee driver in the establishment of the petitioner - Corporation on 23.2.1996. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and it was alleged that while driving the bus bearing No.KA-19/F- 1287 belonging to the Corporation, he has caused accident. The charges levelled against him was proved. Therefore, he was removed from the list of trainee drivers by the Corporation.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'), in I.D.R.No.15/2000 before the Labour Court, Kodagu, Madikeri. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent without back wages.
4
4. This award was challenged by the Corporation by filing a writ petition before this Court in Writ Petition No.1916/2002 (L-K). A specific contention was raised by the Corporation that the claim statement was barred by time. Accepting the said contention of the Corporation, this Court has allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court, with the following observations:
"5. Before the Labour Court the petitioner ha specifically pleaded in para 9 of the counter statement that the petition is barred by time and is not maintainable. Despite this specific plea, the Labour Court has not framed any issue nor gave any finding. The question of limitation will go to the root of the matter and without deciding that question, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award and therefore,t he same is bad in Law. 5 On this ground alone the impugned award is liable to be quashed."
5. The Labour Court has again considered the rival contentions of the parties and passed an award on 26.04.2010, rejecting the claim statement on the ground of delay.
6. Thereafter, the respondent/workman has sought reference of the matter before the competent authority. Since the conciliation failed, the State Government referred the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court at Mangalore, wherein, it was numbered as ID No.6/2011.
7. In the said case, the Labour Court held that the enquiry held by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Therefore, the parties have lead their evidence. 6 On appreciation of the materials on record, the Labour Court has passed the impugned award.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Corporation has established before the Labour Court that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the respondent was not responsible for the accident. Alternatively, it is argued that the respondent had filed an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Act before the Labour Court, which was barred by time. The Corporation is not responsible for the delay in any manner. Therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in 7 directing payment of back wages. It is further submitted that the respondent was only a trainee driver. He was not brought on probation. Therefore, question of granting continuity of service does not arise.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned award.
11. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel made at the bar and perused the materials on record.
12. Certain undisputed facts are that the respondent was appointed as a trainee driver on 23.2.1996. He was removed from the list of trainee drivers on the ground that he had caused the accident, in which one person died and 15 passengers sustained 8 injuries and the bus was severely damaged causing loss to the Corporation. It is also not disputed that the bus met with an accident on 18.5.1997. The respondent filed an application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Act, before the Labour Court, Mangalore, beyond a period of six months from the date of order of the disciplinary authority removing him from service. At the first instance, the Labour Court allowed the claim statement without considering the delay. This Court in W.P.No.1916/20002 (L-K), remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made therein. Thereafter, the Labour Court by award at Annexure-B dated 26.04.2010, rejected the claim statement. This process has consumed nearly 11 years. Thereafter, the respondent sought for conciliation. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for 9 adjudication. In the said case, admittedly the Labour Court has held that the enquiry held by the Corporation was not fair and proper. The parties have let in their evidence in support of their contentions and finally the impugned award came to be passed.
13. The case of the respondent/workman is that cause for the accident was breaking of the neck arm rod attached to the steering rod resulting in the bus running to the right side of the road and hitting a road side tree. It is also not in dispute that the motor vehicle Inspector had inspected the bus after the accident at the instance of the police. However, none of the parties have produced the motor vehicle Inspector's report in order to examine the cause of the accident. The Labour Court has considered the spot mahazar and also the statement of the conductor. It is 10 clear from the materials on record that the cause for the accident was mechanical defects in the vehicle. The finding of the Labour Court is on the basis of appreciation of the materials on record and I do not find any error in the said finding. I am of the view that the order of the Labour Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent into service is just and proper.
14. As has been noticed above, the workman has belatedly filed claim statement before the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Act. The Labour Court without considering the delay allowed the claim statement and the said award was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. After remand, the Labour Court considered the question of delay and rejected the claim statement. This process has taken nearly 11 years. It 11 is only thereafter the respondent sought conciliation of the matter, which has ended in failure and the matter was referred to the Labour Court and the award impugned herein was passed. Therefore, for the delay in conclusion of the proceedings, the respondent alone is responsible. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the award of 50% of back wages is not justified. The respondent was appointed as a trainee driver. He was not brought on probation. Therefore, question of grant of continuity of services is also not justified..
15. In the result, I pass the following order:
The award of the Labour Court, directing reinstatement of the respondent is sustained. However, direction of the Labour Court granting continuity of service is hereby quashed. Similarly, direction to pay 50% of back wages from the date of 12 removal from service till reinstatement, less whatever the amount paid to him by virtue of his reinstatement as per the interim order passed by the High Court in the previous writ petition, is also quashed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA*