Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road vs Siddalingappa on 7 November, 2016
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.58908 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
DAVANAGERE DIVISION
DAVANAGERE BY ITS
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.H.R.RENUKA, ADV.)
AND:
SIDDALINGAPPA
S/O SIDDAPPA
ADULT
POST: ELEBETTUR
TALUK: DAVANAGERE
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577 002
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.P.RAMESHA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 24.09.2012 IN I.D.NO.144
2
OF 2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI
VIDE ANNEXURE-C & ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent / workman was issued with articles of charge dated 06.02.2006. No reply to the said articles of charge having been submitted the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage with cumulative effect. A dispute having arisen was referred to Industrial Tribunal, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Claim statement and counter statement having been filed the tribunal raised the issues. Both parties having adduced the evidence, oral and documentary, upon appreciation of the rival contentions and the record of the case Tribunal has held as follows:
3
"On perusal of the offence memo, penalty receipt, unpunched tickets, and report of the Reporter which are at Exs.M1 to M.4 respectively would unerringly establish the alleged misconduct against the first party workman. When the documents produced by the second party management would unerringly establish the alleged misconduct against the first party, then in my opinion the non production of the waybill will not in any way affect the case of the second party management. Thus, upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record I hold that the misconduct attributed against the workman stands established."
(Underlining by me)
2. However, the Tribunal having examined the award of punishment imposed by the Management, held the impugned order as illegal and unjust and passed the award dated 24.09.2012 vide Annexure-C. The impugned order of punishment was set-aside and the workman was held entitled to the monitory benefits which are denied consequent upon passing of the punishment order. To arrive at the said finding reliance was placed on the decision in Hubert Lobo Vs. The 4 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore reported in 1998 I CLR 381, wherein, it was held that major punishment cannot be imposed without holding domestic enquiry. Assailing the said award - Annexure- C, this writ petition was filed.
3. The finding of fact entered by the Tribunal, upon independent appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties to the effect that the misconduct attributed against the workman, namely the unpunching of tickets has stood established has not been questioned by the workman either by way of cross objections or by an independent petition. The said finding is well founded.
4. Learned advocate for the respondent was unable to point out any material on the basis of which a contrary view with regard to misconduct alleged against 5 the workman can be arrived at. The said finding was not shown to be perverse or illegal.
5. The punishment imposed being not discharge or removal or dismissal from service and in view of the finding of fact entered by the Tribunal at Para 9 of its award, extracted supra, the Tribunal ought to have followed the ratio of law laid down in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 and answered the reference against the workman.
6. In identical circumstance, in WP No.23512/2005, by an order dated 03.03.2011 it was held that the misconduct alleged having been proved, Tribunal has committed illegality by interfering with the punishment imposed by the Management ie., reduction in the time scale.
6
7. The Tribunal having interfered with the punishment order ie., in exercise of power under Section 11A of the Act, contrary to the well settled principles of law, there is need for interference with the impugned award.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned award (Annexure-C) to the extent of interfering with the punishment imposed by the petitioner on the respondent vide order dated 29.09.2006 is quashed. Consequently, the punishment order dated 29.09.2006 stands restored.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH