Karnataka High Court
Hubert Lobo vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ... on 8 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(4)KARLJ524
ORDER V.P. Mohan Kumar, J.
1. The petitioner herein challenges the award passed by the Labour Court. The worker-petitioner herein was driver of the vehicle bearing No. MYF 9032 on March 29, 1987. While he was driving the said vehicle Mangalore to Dharmasthala route an accident took place near Belthangady. In this connection a disciplinary action was taken against him and an article of charges was issued on September 17, 1987, alleging inter alia that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. He submitted his explanation denying the charges. Without any further detailed enquiry the Disciplinary Authority passed the order on 9/ February 11, 1988, withholding the ensuing increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect and to recover a sum of Rs. 941.94, being the cost of damages caused to the vehicle.
2. The worker raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Before the Labour Court, the worker contended inter alia that he is not guilty of the charges framed against him and the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and that the same cannot be imposed without holding a detailed enquiry. The Labour Court considered the question in detail and held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority in withholding the increments of the worker for a period of six months with cumulative effect was proper and justified. However it held the Disciplinary Authority was not justified in recovering the amount of Rs. 941.94 being the material charges and labour charges towards the costs of damages to the bus. Against the said order, the worker has approached this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the respondents. I have been taken through the record. A perusal of the record shows that the worker was negligent in driving the vehicle and the accident was the result of negligent driving. The finding of the Disciplinary Authority in that behalf has to be sustained. The only question raised for consideration is what should be the punishment to be imposed on the worker.
4. When the punishment imposed is withholding of the increments alone, then as contemplated under Regulation 18-A(iii) of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations, 1971, there is no need to conduct a detailed enquiry. On the contrary if the punishment imposed is a major penalty then a detailed enquiry has to be conducted. Therefore the question would be whether the withholding of increments for a period of 6 months with cumulative effect is a major punishment or not. Admittedly such a punishment has a far-reaching effect on the career of the worker and it will affect the prospective earning of the employee, because of stoppage of increments for a period of 6 months. Such a punishment is a serious punishment and it cannot be dealt with summarily. A cumulative punishment means a punishment that accumulates or accrues or adds together or a punishment which continuously increases. It also means a punishment which piles up. It means the said punishment would be said to subsists throughout the career of the employee. It results the employee losing an increment being withheld with cumulative effect, it will result in the punishment visiting the worker throughout his career. It does have an adverse effect on the pension that would be earned by him; it will also adversely affect the service benefit. Therefore it has to be held that withholding of increment with cumulative effect is to be treated as a major penalty. With the above noted side effects, one cannot treat it as a minor penalty. If the Management wants to impose a major penalty as in the nature of withholding of increment with cumulative effect a detailed enquiry ought to have been held. Having failed to do so, I do not think that the Labour Court was justified in maintaining the punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect for 6 months as a minor penalty. Therefore, I modify the award passed by the Labour Court and modify the said punishment as withholding of increments for six months without cumulative effect. With the above modification, the writ petition stands disposed of.