Karnataka High Court
The Chief Traffic Manager vs Sri Lakshme Gowda on 30 September, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
WP No. 465 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 465 OF 2020 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER
BMTC, SHANTHINAGAR K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027
NOW REPRESENTED BY
BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFICER,
BMTC, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. LAKSHME GOWDA
CONDUCTOR, BATCH NO.3000,
BMTC 2ND DEPOT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
KSRTC AND BMTC UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION,
Digitally signed NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROD,
by POORNIMA
SHIVANNA MATTIKERE EXTENSION,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF BANGALORE 560 054.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.L. SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
ON DE DATED 26.09.2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.246/2010 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
WP No. 465 of 2020
ORDER
1. The petitioner/Road Transport Corporation is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a Writ, Writ in the nature of the Certiorari, quashing the order on DE dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.246/2010, at Annexure "A".
b. Issue a Writ, Writ in the nature of the Certiorari, quashing the award dated 27.11.2017 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.246/2010, vide Annexure "B".
c. Further be pleased to call for the records on the file of the Industrial Triubnal, Bangalore in I.D.No.246/2010.
d. Grant such relief or reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The respondent was conducting the work on 02.04.2001 on route 380C when the checking staff intercepted the bus and noticed that out of 48 co- passengers travelling in the bus, the respondent had failed to issue tickets for five of them, and they were travelling ticketless. The necessary fine was also imposed on them, and in view of the irregularities, an offence memo came to be issued as also a detailed report submitted to the higher -3- WP No. 465 of 2020 authority. Based on the reports, articles of charges came to be issued on 21.04.2001, an explanation came to be submitted by the respondent on 28.04.2001. Not satisfied with the explanation, a enquiry was held in which the respondent participated, the enquiry officer confirmed the charges in his report dated 16.10.2001.
3. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued a second notice which was replied to by the respondent, but not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment withholding three increments with cumulative effect vide its order dated 18.04.2004.
4. The respondent raised a dispute, and the matter was referred to conciliation in the year 2010, the conciliation having failed, the State Government referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.
-4-WP No. 465 of 2020
5. The Industrial Tribunal, having held that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner, however, held that the charges are proved but reduced the punishment by modifying the same to the extent of a reduction in pay by two annual increments permanently. It is because of this that the petitioner, the Road Transport Corporation, has brought this case before this Court, claiming that the reduction could not have been made by the Labour Court.
6. Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel appearing for the Road Transport Corporation submits that once the Industrial Tribunal had come to a conclusion that the offence had been proved, the punishment which had been imposed ought not to have been disturbed and as such, the order of the Industrial Tribunal suffers from a legal infirmity requiring interference of the hands of this Court. -5- WP No. 465 of 2020
7. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Unon Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others (2006)5 SCC 201 and contends that the punishment imposed could not have been reduced since the punishment was only as regards the withholding of the annual increments and not one relating to dismissal or discharge of the workman.
8. His submission is that in terms of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 such discretion of reduction of punishment would only be available in the event of dismissal or discharge and not as regards withholding of increments.
9. Sri. L.Shekar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Industrial Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper, the Industrial Tribunal has rightly exercised its -6- WP No. 465 of 2020 discretion in reducing the increments and as such, this Court ought not to intercede with the matter.
10. Heard Sri. Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. L. Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused papers.
11. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is:
Whether an Industrial Tribunal dealing with a matter relating to withholding of increments could reduce the punishment as regards withholding of increments or not?
12. The above issue is no longer res-integra. The Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Unon Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. and Others reported in (2006)5 SCC 201 more particularly at paragraph '6' has held as under:
"6. Therefore, after holding that natural justice was complied with, enquiry held was proper and valid and that the findings are not perverse, the Labour Court set aside the enquiry because ,the enquiry -7- WP No. 465 of 2020 officer was an interested person and baised. Reasoning of the Labour Court as far as relevant is as follows:
"... As stated by me earlier the enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Personnel Manager of the Corporation. This I may state was not proper. He is an employee of the Corporation. As such needless to say that he is an interested person, interested in the Corporation. He can and he will record a finding in favour of the Corporation only. The enquiry cannot therefore be said to be an impartial one. It is true that there is no legal bar in the management holding an enquiry by any of its officers. But in fairness that task could and should have been entrusted with some external agency. This the management had not done. The enquiry cannot therefore be said to be a proper and valid."
13. A perusal of the above paragraph would indicate that Section 11-A of the Act, 1947 is not applicable to an Industrial Tribunal and has no power to reapply the evidence and also reduce the punishment which has been ordered.
14. In view thereof, I answer the point raised by holding that the Industrial Tribunal did not have the power to reduce the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In case of minor punishment and the said power would exist only in cases of dismissal or discharge. I pass the following: -8- WP No. 465 of 2020
::ORDER::
a. The petition is allowed.
b. The order dated 26.09.2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore in I.D.No.246/2010 is quashed. Needless to say that the order of the disciplinary authority is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM