K N Ramakrishna S/O Sri Narayanappa vs The Management Of Ksrtc on 8 March, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

K N Ramakrishna S/O Sri Narayanappa vs The Management Of Ksrtc on 8 March, 2011

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

 ._ P<<:>W;:. 1.,'
aay E't':if~ D"iv3s4"

 a{§5ai,r.a-$5 }A_."KV.V'§3,§>:*ewda, Adv' 3

IN THE HIGH comm" :3? KARNATAKA AT aAN<3ALeVI§'E.a

DATED THIS mg 8?" my OF MARCH, 2Q.1..:1. '_'»  

BEFGRE

THE HQN"BiE MR, EUSTECE AN, vE;'r¥£Lj<'3 §f;'::::;::._;€x -:<;2Cé$g1xI--i.f2a "V"VVV_ 

WRIT PETITION i\I{}.383_O1,/24%}-';)§§*..(L~K$'E?Z.?¥7C) "  M

BETWEEN:

Sri K.N.Ramakrishna, '

S/o. Sri Narayanappa, 7

Aged about 39 years, H "  V

R/at Kammaganahatli v:i'i'Eag;£:',~:: _ _  - 

Arur Post, ChiE:§i'l<aI*;ai'|ap:L-sr Ta'i'uE<,"  

Kolar Distrigt';   "     .
1    PETITEONER

(By vs,:~a'av:L§ ';a&~.}'}'1};:,;  " %'
AND: ' V

The ManaaV'en§evntVVbf KS-3  ,

;k''rsi:2r"w¥'"':i.ui<:Enr*s .
.._._,......, 

\\.vIL.an- L./

Vnai Contmiler.

...RESPO|\EDENT

 Tms .zﬁ.éE§tian is filed under Articies 226 and 227 of

 ﬁﬁe C<:;n"s;tE%::_stion of India, praying to can far the recards
  and quash the award dated }G.8.2§O9 passed by the 2""
..ja'v»Addi';..«A Labcaur Caurt, Bangalore, in I,D.¥\£0J.?0,/ZUEBS
_ pa:<i:a:§':*:§ng ta mznexura «D, by which the Labour Court has
  réjecteéf we siaém 3? we peiétiamar vvézéch £5 arﬁéirary,
  ...£_§.E5egaE and agamsi: tﬁe grevisiang of 1.9 Act.



Ix)

This petition coming on for preiiminary hearing in 'B'
great; this day, the Court made the feliowing:

QRDER

Chalieage in this writ petition is te the  _

Labeur Ceurt, ﬁahgeiore, in I,D,N0.:t?G;'2_,S-5,._d.%sr*h:§ssihg:"  

the ciaim of the petitioner fiied 

Industrial Dispute Act, 194?.  
2. Background facts   fciilows:
The :3etiti0nerwc0Vri--<du'ct'o'rLwaesu C-eﬁrraissioning as such
in Bus Ne.Fm241u8 on   the bus was
intercepted  17:30 hours at
PuEeneiseker:eAh'e"§i;;~-it'i«resi.éft>:in'd-that, the petitioner had not

issued ticketstitvo V20."';3.ass.e;1§;ers, whe were traveilirrg from

 Gad.igje{rarapaii'i' Puiaraayakanahaiii, despite coilecténg

 i3es,":f.ere :Q5:§<I£~V.3f" from each 0? them. The reseohdent

iceii'dc;ctVed"'_'ci.ei'ﬁ'est§c enquiry, which found him guiity, As a

_ reszﬁzz t.he*:5etEti0her was dismissed from service by an

 ,i:orc£ee_r dated 19,10r,2£}O5. The same was chaiienged by the

  e.et§ti'eher before the Euaeeez' Cieeri: imseiehg Sectéee §G{4«

T   ef the Act. The cieim was contested $3,! the reseeriderrt

*2

%
e,»
2'
sé'



by filing counter statement, Issues having been fratrieti,

by an order dated 03.04.2009, the Lebeur Ceurt 

the domestic enquiry conducted, preceding tee efeeiifi-ir;§%*-'-T *

eiemissai as ieir and etceer;....__Wit§'i;  V'

victimization/unfair iabeur prectiee, 

having been given, issue  was" Vanseéereti:""-Eire. 'the * V

affirmative iie., the Manageme_nt:'%'s_jusitifieci"iii.AAd§s;fmissEng
the workman from sevrifieet.  matter with
regard to propottiovnaiitiyfcifhiti};tti's.ijm!en'twAh'»aitirig examined
the Case,    the history
sheet of  out of 76 default
CEISEES,   -eecideci and the workman

having been iii"i\{oh:eac'Ei:irs  4I\:EIE\3C Cases and the workman

 has "ETi_§§3i'EZu shown"'anVVyV imtrrevement in his behaviour despite

 the-._e:ppe'tttinivti~es gives": by the Disciplinary Authority, it was

iéeitit'._t%§<ie't,:"'t~§3.e't§'i'd.er ef disrnissai is meet epprepriate. The

'_Ciairi9i'-- p-eititivtiti was regected, tiptseiding the ercier of

 "   .ei%TiF5r1'1_.iSSEfiVi"'. dated 1910,2005 passsed by the

_ reee'e'ndent/'i'«ienegemeeti 
E 2'

,/"v
,.

K.



3. Sré \f.S.Naii<:, Learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner contended that, the En.::-wiry

Officer/Management was not justified in arriving".a'E-":ii.f°iVE3..

finding that the workman has cernrrtitteéft'  M

misconduct and in irneosing the p:t1nEsh«rhent ;o.fj"dvisrzéis--s'ai.7'

teamed Counseé further contended»'1'tVhat,i A'theii'LaAbo.ui~:. 

has eiso not examined the ."€;C'%_i'.i"&2€:AtV _";j2é;».._},f»'!5'e<t:t'E:ve.
According to the teamed .§ounee'i'*, the workman
has not been correctty there being
discrepancy in 'V  f.»ii'§t'de'eses examined,
the Labour  in:i:eVrfe'red in the matter.
AiternatEv_Avel_'y*,A ;'o't1ineei' contended that, the Labour

Court ought to i*i'a_xi?'eo' exeroised the discretionary power

 t:hde:€iS.i.1~A of ID.ACt having regard to the facts and

 c§irc:a_sni$tae<:e':S'«--..of the case and in View of its faiiure, the

i%t%;:5i§.gne'd«'A"'_*v_v.ava.?a'z*d may be sebaside and if found

V. apoto§3riate;v"';by denying eart of the oeckwagesf the

H'°"'iu"".t,teeeQnde'n.t be directed te reinstate the workmen to duty

_' with' eehtimsity ef service and eenaeeuentiai beneféta,

3
3%



4. Sn G,A.%< Gewda, Learned Counsef appearing

for the respondent, on the other hand contended thatgthe

charged méseenduct nae been proved; the é:E'{:{rr':é'éL:3};%"c,4 eneguiry held was feund 'he be fair aed grapes" V' Ceurt. and the Labour Court having: 'C'r;nsEde4'reﬁ1"£r;e_rna.§:fi.er*'~..A 2 with regard tie the victimisation/L:nfaér7..fAehouTr'--;)hra.r;Vté{:e'.L_Le«n:}j7--:. aise the proeertéonaiity of Vthe"'-.g3unié'en":e:f:;}'-.:in'~.;v'ik'i'e'wj of " ' em/s--17 the Labour Cqurt dri-ii:n'0f"*»fj.nd j'uste.f1c2%tion to interfere in the matter. 'Lleesrrneriv retiance on the decisions Entihe,_c:as;ewr5fFiEf§:I'{§VE-d..{§LV-I'/§;5$.f\iAGﬁR, UPSRTC ETAWAH & Q";"F!.EVF;$-'$333.:.f§..§3¥iIVLAL;V_&ANOTHER M 2003 AIR SCW '.:~;0;1._-- ? MANAGER, RSRTC vs. GHANSHYA{Y'1rSHA--RM,?§ =«':'2no':(1) LL.J 234 and Submitted that',._§Eﬁee..award' ~.ir_npugned in this petition does not can for §n'cVe_.rfer1é'n:e3.4E"n--._e><err:ise of the writ jurisdiction. e;{gaa}e perused the record. The point for . £nnS'é'der"§;tie'n' ie:

V» * Ldfhezffier the impugned aware' C3115 far if? 2fer'feren::e ? 232 6

6. The Labour Court has censieered the matter at length and came te the (I()F1CE%JSi{3l"} that, the enquiry.-.__§f2as been Conducted in juet arse fair manner.

aeoteciated the evidence and havieg feeh---:t:" "

workman had not isseed tickets vt<.;§""2-O'pa;5se.h§'e'ts; ~,a%'het'~., were found traveéling in the bus has heid that, the findings re¢a§f'aVea Ertthe aa;;Tq~ztare,%7"'aar~e"hot ' ' perverse. There is r€:.ja;3pr£B;r:§--at:i?;}-n '€\f ev§'den.<:e--'§ by the Labour Court te recordhhéhtiie'ASat.i_d't'»Vf;ht§ih:%9t,:%'Having noticed Ex.M--17, the history thaV:'jm;orVkrt3'ah and the past conciect she.-.aéhg_ i?é.:i».§;V-\Vih'\,':oEs.fema'htiffih as many as 56 NINC Cases; am ha-3VVVh'et'*Vv.hfa*~.r9ih'g_:"s~ho'w'n any improvement in his conduct, the pt:;vni'S'hh'§ers»t:ihftoosed by the management was heid";;;gs:'jus;t;f';ect,..

A Ih"'~.riomestic enquiry, the Evidence Act, 1872, éo.e'sL;.__;aa'ti' §:§t;;ctt';;z"'appIy. it is trite that, the only right to a V . éeiih'que'ht ehipteyee is that, he must be informed as to charge is agaihat him and he must be given fail .' a"eeettah:t=g to eefehé hémeeéf en the charge. There wee a ;

tee specific charge an which the demestic enquiry was heid, The Lebeer Court hee feiirid than the Enquiry Gfficer has conducted the enquiry in just and fair rrzenne-r. The finding :3? miseeneuet having beer': errixzee at beeed er: Ehevvreeere of the enquiry, even after re--~epprec:ietien by 1:;"i*e~ Court, the same has been heid m be j'E.!Si:§§'i'€di'A--'.::' ffiie' netitierier ﬂees not deny Ex.i\='i~17,1:his:_:;§ee*f'.ehi'e'i;i3i#y'--s'hieet,i' which discloses that he wesV,ivn_~gfoive'e._V.i'ii at|eVeé:t'V'..S§é' Cases. The Management given'-V. aiseixzerai opportunities to impree§"~-%his eepevvrtunities given by imposing brought in any che_rage-in"*E33*e_v:'piet:'i:i.en-er'. -i In the instant case, the petitioner' iieidii nofi_$§szVje»:i::"i;§.;.ei§ets ta 20 passengers despite _ COEl»EfC_iirigii.the f3'i"E' £i;OF¥1:th€¥3"i. The findings recorded in the .i:;?n:3:iiry and the Labour Ceurt, in the facts and 5;:rcie.;fiizete%%"i;:e_s'.:e'i'" the case, cannot be termed as either _ witiéeiit aeieyvevideetiery suepert or perverse. The Enquiry .e:§'}iTfi.:"er aiia the Labour Ceurt have arrived at the finding the eiserge has been ereeee with reference ﬁe the VT 'eeieeece_, which iiee beers ereeghi ee reeeie. "fiiere ie mwuW"'"""'°"' e 33>' W' detaiied aepreciation of the evidence by the Enquiry C)ffic:er in the report and aiso by the Labour Court in the impt:g__neo award. The-re cannot be any interference with fihd'i'vnfg«_of4 feet in the writ eroeeedirige, Liniese there ie V' and perversity. The record does~inet&shiowréiieiqtiéieir.e«ny, it misdirection or perverse approach on i"the"--piartV of enquiry officer and the L&bC)Li>i'*.LC.(3.L'!Ft. tie groVu.nri'..:e5<i's't"e to " V interfere on the finding of charg--ed.."mié.c:ondiie't'.~...

8. In i>Iv:sI<:>i~i_;ij;~--. CijNjRcr_._,iiE¥<,.e_NEKRrc vs. H. AMARESH «» zooeiscc (tree) :'.2si.Q,";tiiizirsieeezr held that, punishrheinit"shoeid':3:'e'I'ti«ie'ys§be oroeortionate to the gravity of the eroved The petitioner, instead of proteVc_i.:ing _rea:ienuAe_ o'f"the respondentwiorporation, on "'«..accetii'i'it:e_A--ef the rnViSc'o'e'duct, has acted detrimental to the t_i_nrte:rest:"'o_f'i2:h'eo_VC-nrporation and has caused loss; to it. In the,__4'eirCLi_niéri:g:rnces, in the background of E><.M--1?; the %°<.,'<.,Laboor~_'C.:>uri: is; justified in not interfering with the ".V"§i.§§"ii§i'_'*I""i"i€fit. § 3 33;

xi' 9 9:. Since the Labour Court has adjudicated the manner is accordance with Eaw and the finéings reco-r__ded in the awaré passed by the iabsur Cour': is basecijV'o--n§""th&34 apsrecéatiers sf maieréaé piaceé an its remrzsfj':ands t§?iér}é:é''''s "

being no misdirectécm adopted, .-my»--.qros'.mci 'ta-ﬁcisiig./_ii0r~_V V interference, In the resuit, the writ p'é:§':s.p_n is"de_vei_Vd ;}f"%j1e~:'§.t and = L' is hereby dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court