Karnataka High Court
The Management, Karnataka State Road , vs M Lokesh on 23 September, 2014
Bench: N.K.Patil, B.Sreenivase Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
:PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
W.A.No. 3370 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
Between:
The Management,
Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation,
Davanagere Division, Davanagere.
By its Divisional Controller,
Rep. by its Chief Law Officer,
Central Office, K.H. Road, Bangalore.
...Appellant
(By Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate)
And :
M. Lokesh,
S/o. Mudliagiriyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Shimoga Depot,
KSRTC., Davanagere Division,
Presently Working at KSRTC
Central Division, Bangalore-27.
...Respondent
This W.A. is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka
High Court Act, praying to set aside the Order dated
2
03/12/2012 passed by this Court in Writ petition
No.33201/2011.
This W.A. coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day,
N.K.PATIL J., delivered the following:
:J U D G M E N T:
In this appeal, petitioner/appellant is assailing the correctness of the order dated 03/12/2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.33201/2011.
2. Along with the appeal, appellant has also filed I.A.1/2013, seeking condonation of delay of 145 days in filing the appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel Smt. H.R. Renuka, appearing for appellant. She submitted that the delay in filing has been explained in paras- 2 and 3 of the application, the same may be accepted, delay may be condoned and the matter may be heard on merits
4. We have gone through the statements made in paras-2 and 3 of the application. The statements made in the applications reads thus:
"2. The order in question is dated 3.12.2012 and an application for issue of 3 certified copy of the order was made on 17.4.2013 and the certified copy of the order was received by the counsel on 19.4.2013. There has been delay in securing the certified copy of the order. The counsel for the corporation informed that due to oversight he had not applied for issue of certified copy of the order and the same is not deliberate. Hence there has been delay in securing the certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order was furnished to the corporation on 26.4.2013, the appeal could not be presented as the court remained closed for summer vacation. The appeal has been prepared and presented on 27.5.2013. The delay in filing the appeal has come about due to aforestated circumstances and the same may kindly be condoned.
3. It is respectfully submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same has come about in view of the circumstances stated above. In the event the delay is condoned no hardship would be caused to the respondent and on the otherhand hardship would be caused to the appellant in the event the delay is not condoned. Hence it is just and expedient that this Hon'ble court be pleased to condone the delay."
5. After perusing the above statements made by the appellant in the application, it emerges that, there is a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal. The said delay has not been explained satisfactorily by the appellant by 4 assigning cogent and valid reasons. The explanation offered is in a very casual manner. Except making bald statements, no credible or trustworthy reasons are assigned for explaining the said delay. As there is a delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, the appellant is bound to explain each day's delay in filing the appeal by assigning cogent and valid reasons. Much credibility cannot be given to the explanation offered by the appellant for condoning the said delay. Hence, in view of non explanation of the delay in filing the appeal, in a satisfactory manner, we are of the view that the said delay cannot be condoned. Nor the appellant has made out any good ground to condone the said delay. Hence, I.A.1/2013 is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and accordingly, it is dismissed.
6. However, in the interest of justice and equity, we have perused the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 3rd December 2012 in W.P.No.33201/2011.
5
7. It is the case of the appellant that on 4.4.1998, the respondent was conducting bus bearing No.F.294 attached to Shimoga depot plying between Shimoga and Bhadravahti. Six passengers travelling in the bus were not holding tickets and the respondent had not issued the tickets and had to collected the fare from them. Ticketless passengers were subjected to pay fine and the office memo was served on the respondent and the matter was reported to the Management. The Management without holding any enquiry passed an order on 9.7.1988 i.e. withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The respondent having approached the Government as against the said action, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli, after lapse of 10 years. The Tribunal taking notice of the record of the case set aside the punishment imposed by the Management on the respondent and held that the respondent is entitled to monetary benefits denied, consequent on the order of 6 punishment/withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and directed to pay the monetary benefit with interest at 6% p.a.. Against which, the appellant has filed W.P.No. 33201/2011. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on a decision in the case of Hubert Lobo Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and others reported in 1997 (4) KLJ 524, wherein, this Court has held that, withholding of increment with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty and a major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the decision of the Management. Further, the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the explanation offered which is not satisfactory, has held it is a case of minor punishment of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect ought to have been ordered by the Management and opined that the Tribunal is not 7 justified in directing payment of monetary benefits with interest at 6% p.a. that too when there was inordinate delay of more than 10 years in the reference being received by the Court for adjudication. Accordingly, proceeded to allow the said petition in part and quashed the impugned award therein and also quashed the action of the Management in imposing the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Further, the learned Single judge, keeping in view the record of the case and the nature of misconduct committed by the respondent, punished the respondent by way of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and also directed the appellant to regulate the matter. The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge for modifying the award is just and proper. We do not find any error or illegality. Nor we find any ground grounds to consider the relief sought in this appeal. Taking all these factors into consideration, 8 the instant appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as also on merits.
Further, it is needles to clarify that, this judgment will not become precedent to other cases.
In view of dismissal of the appeal on delay and laches as also on merits, the relief sought by the appellant in I.A.No.2/2013 does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is dismissed as having come infructuous.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE tsn*