The Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs The Labour Commissioner on 28 February, 2011

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs The Labour Commissioner on 28 February, 2011

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE .28" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011
B E F O R E

THE HOi\J'E»i._E MR. JUSTICE ma. vE:\JUGom_A 

WEI"? PETITEON :\ro.2488;'250? {L-Ksafaiij'"~7_jj;.:  .

BETWEEN:

The Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Centrai Office, Sarige Sadama;
Shanthinagar,

Bangalore »» 560 02?,  _
R@§§'ES€f'it€€i by its Chief Law  Lder.

  __  _ .4t§Ef1TI0NER

(By Smt, Shwetha Anand; _;xd\;«..)f3* 
 . . ' . ..
3.. Tm-.,La"bd'eurV:Ct§§jrzt;{his§I<;s_:ﬁe;f', '

Office ._of the L_at:Q'uzf '€.g>fé*:i'a'aissioner,

Karmika.._VBh.ava.na;._ 

Btmrigerazgezttta 'Road.

'_ V_»'E'.?3n:g_aiQz*e ~ '5{i«0....Qt29.
.A =.,§2.:t _ﬁé.E'e-tédvvide order dated 12.10.2009.

Afxged. .ai3i:;_I;tt 36 years,
"S/0,; Rﬁiﬁévanraa,
 Rm. £3639/3t, Hc::$abandii»:erig
 .. ,_6""'= Cross, Chamunﬁigauramg
" _ Evéysete.
"  HRESPQNBENTS

{Ev 3;»; "magmm, gay, for CXRE;

'  t~---:2_: deiéteéﬁé



This petitiisan is ﬂied under Articles 226 and 22"? of
{he Canstitutioa of India, praying to sail far recordg aria
quash the iriipugneﬁ award dated 21.11.2005 passseé by
the Labsur Caurt, Mangainre, if'; ED Appiicatinn (LCM)
E\3r:,>.?;'1998 vide Annexure » C ta tthig writ: petition,

This petition Coming an far hearing this €§.;a 'y'}.]i'.§'i€
court maﬁa the fniiawing:   

GRDER

The iespandent, a trainee iirniveri 03%;.' 

25.9.96

, was; aiieged to have causing in death of and injuries to piaﬁéeijgeihs the " L' Qroperty. Siiowicause. noti<::e----,5:';iK_ri:'iii:ie$ 29%"-€,T.ha,i.f;e dated 31.3.9? was issued by iijiiiai--pétiiii'i;nisei',*iifgjiyhiich, a repiy was submizitedv rﬁs.g§crn'ci<»3-ni.'". After previding an opportiiiniiy of ._§<»::1}f's;r>i)»ii".~':%:if""Fiearing, Disciplinary Authority {3E3S$f?fT§ an i§'i'<i,_ér'dété£i 25.9.97 to remove the name of the '' l'jE3§''§§l'(EiF"E€}f'"t?i'3f' from i:Vi*ié'iVist of trainees and the service {if the i.._fe$.;5§in_é'e;fé:"igzrégg thus terminated. The said Carder was quee4;s:tianéd:ﬂ§:i§,?i the respcméent by raising a dispiiige under S.1i3{%;.g2S;-) Qf the Imfustiiai Sisagutes ixci, 194'? {far Shari:

V"--V'_"':.i'7:;e::'A';;"ici'}, and the cage was registered as LAE. No"?/98 in the iabnur Cmirt at ieiygnre. Tine Dﬁtiiifoiiﬁi' fiieé a izeiiritei ,av \\A"i'f?WM U3 statement, The meanings having given rise to framing of issues, the Labour Court raised issazes. The respsndent depnged as WW": and produced Ex.W1 »~ Eudgment in Cri.A. Nc}.17;'99. For the petiticrzer, T,N. Nara$Vi;*r§.ijiari.§3tz deposed as MW~1, through wham Exs. Mi rnarkeé. The Labour Court has heid thatf not the resuit ef entire rash and :=!_"1EEg§-E.§,}A(ffi'j:E'1E':Q%'i..;thé§§E§.i§'iiZ' the workman and at the rn0s:;t, ii: Vé:;ra_n" be acciéent was the resuit of COIivEFv§_':iU?,.QFy "n'eg;1Tiig':encVi§ on the part of the drivers 0f' tfnei--~.réi:.iV;i.§§é«_.%' Considering the age <31' the wori<rn_an anti..tn2:st, iha:3"vn{3t».';:«j'i;sed any other accideint deriving support from the decisiorziiintiie ¢a.s'e"~§i" ziiwkiérc vs. 3.52. GUDUGANATTI rep§;}{rté3d.. in KAR 4984, the Lriairn petitiori was 'part anti the management was directed ta A"'rg'i'n_5%ta'i;é"'t.tie@o'ri<man to the pogt iasi: neid by him and iii? Cc3ri't.inu.gé mii as: a trainee driver. For the misconduct of cas;.sing~~*f"atai accident, the werkman wag éegrived of four ' 'A-§ti{:s°:~3%*;'*:er:t$ rgumuiativeiy aria aim the backwages. The gaid

-»v.£f§i:i:a:"n hag bean QLi€${§i},¥§€§ by the emggiciyer. E 1?'-.

K

2. Seat. ﬁhwetha Amend, learned cehuneei apeeering Fer the petitiener ccriteeeed that, the Award is perverse and iiiegai in as mm/.:h accident being heid as e3tab|i:shed_aVn»d aft.e'r"'r'e.§'_®r§'§ing_tE2e finding :31' centributory negiigence by"rriﬂe"»x;5ro.ri{'e':eij'-}i.,._'tiieré interference with the deci::é_cirn.V ofhhe Vmanegemeni: i:%e,V r remove the name of respondVre_i€§;..:f're.rn efitrainees and his terminatieri frorn'seirx;ic.eJi§"V-n'efp'justified. Learnee counsel submitsrtizet, ftrirereijisvvne:n_'e§;iiir%:.eiz'Ven of mind and non j;éviii".i:Vi§e"'?t;<>rre<:t perspective and heeee, 'éV;<it'ei'§erer,eeiifétalierj fcjér.

l ._,ieerned counsel appearing for the w_eri<n?i"an "en_':he~~,_eth'er hand, would submit: that, the acv?§_iE3~en.:A i:i'i_ qeeétive-e-«rides occurred on account of the rash rjlriving of the maxi cab by its driver and tiirere we.$'x%I_:_erilneeiigence of whatseever nature an the part ef thevrespondeni /' workman. Learned coerisei coriteees A i:i'ie'i;~,,_. E><.W1 eieeriy eeews that the workmen was eei: the eeuse fer rite eceiéent whicri eiicurreei en 25.9% arse that /'"

the teseondent has not caused any ether accident. Learned couneei pointed eut that, ever: after the erder dated 10.8.0"? passed by this {:G%~._4¥{ig there is unblemished service rendered ey the wdrkman. He further pointedteut that, the petitioner has been issued with performance certificate for saving of me-3.....:fi*ie"--..fu.rtiiet submitted that the wdrkman ie eitiiif} dependant famiiy and that .t:i"ie_. LabVc'm_r"'Ceurt"u'ir~;a,'{.;_V.rig'_ijit"'iii:"'i. exercising power under S.1§.--A°e:t'i;tie Aet'-a_nd':nd'i§fauit can be found with the im;;:;;:;g;_;"i%;eci --§§rqV.¢t'; V4; the"i~~i-eerned counse! on both sides the record, the paint for consi'deraxtii'-an ififiiiwethet"'th.e_§_Lebour Court was justified in §T%O{iEfyii'sg §i£zJ'|:*IiE3_i'1I'T"1@i"it at retnevei / termination into one of ' \i"\iE't:'".'V!v%_f§'(:»'V[A.§:3iviVi"'§i§ of feet increments?"

The record wduid indicate that an accident iiitiiiffetf an 25.9% ievdiasing the veidicle which was driven tie the reeeendent end e maxi cab. Sn account ef the said 2 "59 ,2 xi"

E3 accideni, E perscms having sustained fatal injuries succumbed and 2? dtners were injured. The has driven by the respdrzdedt aisd suffered damage. Excwl §h<;;>w$ than in View cf the deficiency in the evidenceg the A§};§I§a'te Court has heid that it is not safe ta cdravict and has set aside the cdnvictien and senten£:»e.:'}:m:§é:Se.d v. the Eearned Tria! Judge. Ad 0§=der:_-.d&f?z:§E:qd.i.tt'aE4"ft;-r__ '£%}e' offences charged with E.e,_, under Ss.,2'";?Q, IPC was passed. The LabodV§"~«dCo:_1VVrt in'a::..x:h'éEd Vvfgnat, the accident can be on accdbnt 'r:g;>€§'tsi%nbutery negligence on the part of__b<:>th t,he.:._d.rivéAr£:_. "."T'hei.'i1:siV{etch at Ex.m sh0ws7,_that-- 0'<:c:u:*red in End middie of the road. 't:"'r1é"'r;:§jnn=§«.Ij'§jiﬁ'<>ry' negiigence on the part of 'tE"ae4;d2*%v.er of i:'%1e_V"r9naxE cab CE3F}f10§'L be rated Gut. It appears i:?TséE r;e Sp._ondent couid not have avoided the accident. TaTigiVng'vtTh_::§V$eVAV.T'§;iV:'Cumstances intd accduntf the finding 01' the La%;d:::<-._"Cdd'rt that the amsdent ES an accdunt at' the ?O{}iFi§§u{IO¥}f degiigence dn the part Of&dI'i'xf€i"S df bath the *;e»%e::é:::eg ag wed fdunded' MI %. The FESQOQQSFEE is a middie aged perscm and ms depaandant farraiiy ta maintain. Ir: the circumstances sf the cage; the Labcmr Cour: $3 jzsgtified En pissing retiance on the deciséczrz in the case af BR, GUDUGANATTI (sugra_j"'a.nd in exercége af powar under SJ.1~A of the Act!;"i'ra€é.:V;vf§z§i'e7;};; with the quantum 3? punishment.

1?. In the circumstances 'of --:cas»95,".t:ﬁe"i.«§%:2dL§,r_' Ccurt has not committed a't€y-.._V§Eleg--é-Evétiz in *é§> <<A;%i:f"':*,.i.<.s,iVVr1rh\;;: its gawer under' 8.114% éf ti'3€___;%3{t:t:_ :.3..rjz_é if? the punishment. Indi£;{:3uV1:&:c:.ﬁy, ._in question was the oniy;;z::,§i§enE'*i§:.:":~.thép'sérvEc'ew:;f the responéent. Even after the"'fa;i:'§Sé:é=;'*e¢ra*2¢E~'r~:*__V°p§.:fsuant to the order dated i€).8.O17, xfiuﬁ res ;:>;>ﬁAd_f:--§n.t:_"..'L'has not committed any similar mE§;::~icmgj_L{:c§ and'*ha._s__'been issued with a merit certificate. 'Iii'"the-V._V5c'i~r{:ufa*::;:aacn<:es, I 60 not deem it appropriate to i's*a;t e1'§-w*f'e:~V°:é'"--{§§:tEf:TI=V£he Awarci passed by the Labaur Cmmz, §mp{Jg;i;:2§ ":45 this writ petitisra. The Labsur Comrt, won a?Vpf[;:--~:§ciéifian ef the materiaé facts am circagmstances 0f the §:};3séA, %':a$ pagged the émgugned ﬁwami in exercise 3? its jurisdictien mass' S.11~A ef the Act. The di$<:r_etic:n exercised, keegmg in View Tihéé facts am circumst4aV.ﬁ_t<t{$~..of rm case, carmet be termed ag éléagat.

If': the resuit, the writ petiti0_r3j$_ devgﬁtj' shail $%:ar:é dismissed.

The reénstatemezét ef'Ehg.._Vfes;5en€fe:3t :t£§:ia'£'§~.,tc:g3VVVt<:é the post of traiaee--driver_w2t:h tf_1___é V"-:3 e;;>..r_VivaI '<,;«fT_%4 iﬁﬁrements cumulativeéy ané with¢'*a:£7b_a€-kw2;a'gés.St$n:f§s uphem. No cos1:s_ V ' .. = ﬁw -«reg 'We E,' 3 E' « . *1,» ~ fM.a~:;',3s 2 §§§§g sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court