Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

North East Karnataka State Road vs Ramesh S/O Datturao on 10 January, 2013

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar, Ravi Malimath

                             1




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
            CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

        DATED THIS THE 10thDAY OF JANUARY 2013

                         PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR
                        AND
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

         WRIT APPEAL NO 10332/2011 (L-KSRTC)


BETWEEN:

North East Karnataka State
Road Transport Corporation,
Through its Managing Director,
The appellant is represented by its
Chief law Officer,
NEKRTC, Central Office,
Gulbarga.
                                           ..Appellant
( By Sri: Subhash Mallapur, Adv.)


AND :

Ramesh S/o Datturao
Age: 54 years, Occ: Nil (Ex-Driver),
P.No.4684, Chincholi Depot),
R/o.H.No.1542/75-H,
Humnabad-Aland Ring Road,
                                2



Near Bablad Math,
Bhavani Nagar, Gulbarga.
                                                      ..Respondents


      This Writ Appeal is filed under Section-4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order
dated 25.05.2011 passed by the single Judge in the writ
petition No.83529/2009 (L-KSRTC).

   This Writ Appeal coming up for orders this day,
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR .J., delivered the following.


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the employer - NEKRTC questioning the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.83529/2009.

2. The respondent was working as a driver-cum conductor under the appellant. The checking officials of the bus checked the bus while the bus was proceeding from Gulbarga to Hyderabad on 19.11.2001. They found that there were totally 40 passengers travelling in the bus and among them, one passenger was travelling without ticket. The ticketless passenger was levied penalty. The 3 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for misconduct of not issuing ticket to one passenger. In the enquiry, the respondent was found guilty of misconduct and was dismissed from service. Upon reference, the Labour Court allowed the reference partly directing reinstatement without backwages. The said award is confirmed by the learned single Judge.

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent was not merely a driver of the bus, but also a conductor. The bus was fairly loaded with passengers. There were 40 passengers on the Board. One of them was found ticketless. The Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge having felt that it is the case of inadvertence on the part of the respondent, took lenient view and directed the Road Transport Corporation to reinstate the workman without backwages.

4

4. The respondent is already aged about 55 years and he has got only few years of service left. In view of the same and having found that the punishment of dismissal or any punishment would work out hardship not only against the respondent but also against his family members, the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have exercised discretion under Section-11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and lenient view is taken. Since the Judgment of leaned Single Judge is just and proper and as the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the judicial discretion exercised by the Labour Court, no interference is called for.

Appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

gss/-                                  JUDGE