Karnataka High Court
Sri.H.D.Nagaraj vs The Bmtc on 18 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.15183/2009 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI H D NAGARAJ
S/O TIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT BESTARAPETE
ARAKALAGOODU POST
HASSAN DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S B MUKKANNAPPA, ADV.)
AND:
THE BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-27
BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R I D'SA, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 01.01.2009, PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN REF.NO.25/2006, THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANN-C, BY WHICH THE LABOUR COURT HAS REJECTED THE
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE WHICH IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND
AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.D. ACT AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 01.01.2009 passed in Ref. No.25/2006 at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking mandamus that he be reinstated into service.
2. The petitioner was working as a conductor in the respondent Corporation. While he was conducting the bus bearing No.F 1571 on route No.5/6 plying from Puttur to Honnavalli on 28.04.2002 and on being checked found that he had reissued the used tickets as per the details indicated in the charge sheet and in that light action had been initiated against the petitioner. The charge alleged was proved in the enquiry held against him and in that view, the dismissal order dated 29.04.2004 was passed. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same had raised the dispute which had been referred to the Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in Ref. No.25/2006.
3
3. The validity of the domestic enquiry being held fair and proper, the evidence tendered through the witness as MW.1 and the documents at Exhs.M1 to M23 were available to be looked into by the Labour Court. While considering the said documents, the Labour Court has extensively referred to the evidence and has taken note of the evidence that had been put forth by the petitioner with regard to the charge. In that regard, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the charge that the earlier issued tickets had been reissued to the passengers has been taken into consideration. In the present circumstance, when the validity of the domestic enquiry was upheld, the other issues which arise for consideration are only with regard to the perversity of the findings, victimization if any and also with regard to the nature of punishment imposed keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct that had been proved. 4
4. While taking note of these aspects, the reissue of the tickets having been established, the evidence in that regard which had been tendered before the enquiry Officer was referred to by the Labour Court and in that view did not find any perversity. Insofar as the victimization, there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever tendered by the petitioner-workman. The only other consideration which remained before the Labour Court is the quantum of punishment. Keeping in view the charge that had been established, the Labour Court in that regard taking note of the provision contained in Section 11A of the I.D.Act had also taken into consideration the earlier instance for which he had been punished. The petitioner had been punished with lighter punishments earlier and thereafter had been dismissed once and was reinstated. In all the petitioner had committed similar offences 126 times of which the last 19 cases were committed after the petitioner had been 5 reinstated into services subsequent to earlier dismissal being set aside. If the said aspects are kept in view, the consideration as made by the Labour Court to decline the exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner would also stand justified.
5. Therefore if all these aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge of the Labour Court was justified in rejecting the reference through the award dated 01.01.2009. In that view, I see no reason to interfere with the award impugned herein.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms