Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Nekrtc vs Ramachandra S/O. Ramu on 19 July, 2022
Author: S. Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S. Vishwajith Shetty
1 W.P.No.206158/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.206158/2016 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NEKRTC
GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI DEEPAK VISHNU BARAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RAMACHANDRA S/O. RAMU
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.,
a. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. LATE RAMCHANDRA
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
b. ANILKUMAR S/O. LATE RAMCHANDRA
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
c. SUNILKUMAR S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
d. SACHINKUMAR S/O. LATE RAMACHANDRA
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
2 W.P.No.206158/2016
ALL ARE R/O. SERI SANNA TANDA, KALAGI
VILLAGE, TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY M. JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING
TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
WHEREBY QUASHING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KALABURAGI DATED-
29.07.2016 IN K.I.D NO. 12 OF 2015 AS AT
ANNEXRURE-D TO THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - Corporation is before this Court in the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the judgment and award dated 29.07.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Kalaburagi in proceedings bearing KID No.12/2015 vide Annexure-D.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3 W.P.No.206158/2016
3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition are that on 30.12.2013, when the respondent -workman was on duty as a conductor in the bus belonging to the petitioner - Corporation on Kalaburagi - Shahabad route, the said bus was checked by the inspection squad and it was found that the respondent - workman had not issued tickets and not collected fair of Rs.18/- from one passenger. Further, he had also entered in the way bill at Stage No.1 in order to misappropriate a sum of Rs.45/-. On these allegations a charge memo was issued to the respondent. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent - workman, enquiry was initiated against him and the enquiry officer had submitted a report against the respondent - workman and based upon the same, the disciplinary authority had passed the order of termination against the respondent - workman on 16.07.2014. Being 4 W.P.No.206158/2016 aggrieved by the same, the respondent -workman had approached the Labour Court, Vijayapur and in the said proceedings, the Labour Court vide the judgment and award impugned has set-aside the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and has directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent- workman into service without back wages with continuity of service with last pay drawn without costs. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge against the workman-respondent is proved and therefore the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. He also submits that there is past history of 11 cases of similar nature against the respondent-workman and in-spite of that he had indulged in pilferage. Therefore, the Labour Court was 5 W.P.No.206158/2016 not justified in passing the impugned judgment and award.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for legal representatives of the respondent-workman submits that during the pendency this writ petition respondent-workman has died. He also submits that Issue No.1 was answered against the petitioner- Corporation by the Labour Court and thereafterwads alleged charges against respondent-workman have not been proved by them by producing necessary material. He submits that the past history alleged against the respondent-workman were also not proved and therefore Labour Court has rightly observed that the order of dismissal was disproportionate compared to the charges levelled against the workman.
6 W.P.No.206158/2016
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the material available on record.
7. The allegation against the respondent- workman was that he had not issued ticket to one passenger who was travelling in the bus on 30.12.2013 in which the respondent-workman was working as a conductor and also had not collected the fair of Rs.18/- from said passenger. Further allegation is that he had also not made entry in the way bill in order to misappropriate. Though the respondent-workman was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings by the Enquiry Officer the Labour Court has answered Issue No.1 framed by it against petitioner-Corporation and held that enquiry was not fair and proper and therefore it was for the petitioner-Corporation to independently prove the charges against the respondent-workman before the Labour Court. Though an attempt was made by the 7 W.P.No.206158/2016 petitioner -Corporation by examining MW-1 who is the Inspector to favour the charges, the evidence of the said witness has been considered in detail by the Labour Court and it has given a clear finding that there is no intentional misconduct by the respondent-workman.
8. Further as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman, the past history of the respondent-workman was also not proved by the petitioner-Corporation before the Labour Court by producing necessary material in that regard. The Labour Court having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the judgment of this Court which has been quoted in para 17 of its judgment, have given a finding that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and accordingly the Labour Court has partly allowed the claim petition of the workman and has set- aside the order of dismissal passed against him. 8 W.P.No.206158/2016 Admittedly, the respondent-workman has expired during the pendency of this writ petition. The Labour Court has denied the back wages of the workman while directing petitioner to reinstate the workman. The only relief granted to the workman was his continuity of service with last pay drawn without costs.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration that the workman has died during the pendency of this petition, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case for interference. More so, when the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer any illegality or irregularity, accordingly, I decline to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srt/sn