Karnataka High Court
Maruti Laxman Naik S/O Laxman vs The Divisional Controller on 30 June, 2023
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486
WP No. 109980 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 109980 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
MARUTI LAXMAN NAIK S/O. LAXMAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/O: POST NANDAGUDDA,
TQ: & DIST: KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA,
PIN-581329
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEGDE & VIJAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HARIHAR
RAKESH Location: High N.W.K.R.T.C., DHARWAD DIVISION,
Court of
S Karnataka,
Dharwad
DHARWAD.
HARIHAR Date:
2023.07.04 ... RESPONDENT
11:08:43
+0530 (BY SRI. C.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD PASSED IN KID NO.119/2012, DATED
23.04.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER,
LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486
WP No. 109980 of 2014
ORDER
1. The petitioner, who was working as a Driver with the respondent - Corporation has approached this Court assailing the impugned award at Annexure-E, dated 23.04.2014, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi, in proceedings bearing KID No.119/2012.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this writ petition narrated briefly are, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver with the respondent - Corporation in the year 1988. He was subsequently transferred to Bhatkar Depot, Karwar and thereafter to Dharwad Division. On 14.01.2011, he was issued with the charge sheet on the allegation that while he was discharging duty on 22.07.2010 in the bus belonging to the respondent - Corporation, which was plying from Gokarna to Kumta, near Harikad Cross, he had dashed the bus against the oncoming lorry and caused the accident, in which sixteen passengers were injured and -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 bus was also damaged and thereby, the Corporation had sustained financial loss. In the disciplinary enquiry held against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner was held guilty and the disciplinary authority had passed an order of punishment on 05.09.2012 dismissing him from service. Assailing the said order, the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, Hubballi by raising the dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the said proceedings, the Labour court held that the Corporation had not conducted the domestic enquiry in a fair and proper manner. The said finding had attained finality. The respondent - Corporation to prove its charges against the petitioner, had examined one witness as MW2 and the claimant has examined himself as WW1. Vide the impugned award, the Labour Court had dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question. He submits that the respondent - Corporation had not proved the allegation against the petitioner and in spite of the same, the Labour Court has failed to exercise its power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act. He submits that MW2 is not a competent witness to prove the charges against the petitioner, he was not an eyewitness to the incident. He also submits that in the criminal case, which was filed against the petitioner, the jurisdictional Criminal Court after full fledge trial has acquitted the petitioner of the alleged charges and the said order of acquittal has attained finality. He accordingly, prays to allow the writ petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation has argued in support of the impugned award and submits that the petitioner is history sheeter and was involved in several similar case of accidents even earlier. He submits that the order of -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 dismissal which was issued to the petitioner on an earlier occasion was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated at the intervention of the Court. He submits that even though MW2 is not an eyewitness to the accident in question, the documentary evidence produced by the management before the Labour Court clearly establish the charges against the petitioner and therefore, there is no scope for interference as against the impugned award. He accordingly prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments addressed on both sides and perused the material available on record.
7. The Labour Court undisputedly has answered issue No.1 against the respondent - Corporation and has held that the domestic enquiry held against the petitioner was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. The said finding recorded by the Labour Court has attained finality. In order to prove its allegation against the petitioner, the respondent - Management thereafter has examined one -6- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 witness as MW2, who undisputedly is not an eyewitness to the accident in question. MW2 is an Assistant Traffic manager working with the respondent - Corporation. From the perusal of his deposition, it is seen that he has stated before the Labour Court that in the accident that had occurred on 22.07.2010, sixteen passengers were injured and the bus was completely damaged and the Corporation had also paid exgratia compensation of Rs.24,100/- to the injured passengers and had spent Rs.1,56,037/- for the repair of bus, which was involved in the accident. He has also spoken about the past history of the petitioner and has stated that he was involved in seven cases previously and was also dismissed from service on one occasion and the said order of dismissal was set aside and thereafter he was reinstated.
8. From the perusal of the cross-examination of the petitioner, who was examined as WW1, it is seen that a suggestion is made to the petitioner that even after reinstatement, he was involved in as many as five cases of -7- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 accident and it is in the fifth case the impugned order of punishment of dismissal is passed. The Labour Court after appreciating the oral evidence of MW2 and WW1 and also the doucmentary evidence at Exs.M1 to M28, which were placed on record by the respondent - Corporation has dismissed the claim petition of the petitioner. At paragraph No.16 of the order, the Labour Court has observed as follows:
"16. XXXXX Even in the sketch Ex.M17, it is mentioned that the place of accident is 9 ft away from western edge and 13 ft away from eastern edge. As per the panchanama and the spot sketch and as per the evidence of the claimant the bus bearing No.KA-25-F-2506, which was driven by this claimant on the date of accident was going from Gokurna to Kumta i.e., from North to South. The car was also going from North to South Side and the lorry was coming from opposite side. The width of the road was 25 ft as per the admission given by the claimant during the cross examination and as per this sketch Ex.M.17 the width of the road was 22 ft. But the accident has taken place at about 9 ft away from western edge of the road Therefore, it is clear that the driver of the bus i.e., claimant has crossed half or the road and dashed to the lorry and it is also clear that the driver of the bus has caused this accident while overtaking the car. In the absence of evidence of independent witnesses, I have to rely the evidence of claimant and the documents produced by M.W.2 in order to arrive at a conclusion. Therefore this document shows that the claimant himself has drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The spot panchanama -8- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 prepared by the police which was produced at Ex. M.16 also supports the version of respondent management. Here, the complaint Ex.M.15 was given by the passenger of the claimant's bus regarding rash and negligent driving of the claimant. The claimant has not examined any independent witness to show that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, the burden of discharging his duty to prove that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as per the principle laid down by our Hon'ble Supreme Court has not been discharged by the claimant."
9. In addition to the same, the material on record would go to show that the petitioner was a history sheeter, who was involved in nine cases of accident in which three accidents were fatal in nature and four other accident cases were grievous injuries. Ex.M27 is the history sheet of the petitioner, which is not denied. The petitioner was also dismissed from service by the respondent - Corporation on 30.06.1997 and later he was reinstated into service as per the order passed by the Labour court, wherein the order of dismissal was set aside and the respondent - Corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner with 50% backwages. The said order passed by the Labour Court insofar as it relates to payment of 50% -9- NC: 2023:KHC-D:6486 WP No. 109980 of 2014 backwages was modified by the Division of this court in W.P. No.4266/2000, disposed off on 13th October 2003, after recording the undertaking given by the petitioner herein that he will not give scope for allegation of driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in future. In spite of such an undertaking given by him, the material on record would go to show that he was involved in accident cases, even after reinstatement and therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned award passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42