Karnataka High Court
Shiva Kumar S/O Sanne Gowda vs The Managing Director on 30 October, 2009
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
2 This Writ Appeal Coming on for preliminary hearing a/W Misc.W.4024/O9 for further orders before the Court this day, Gopala Gowda, J delivered the fol1owing:- JUDGMENT
Delay of 18 days in filing this appeal it 'w Misc.W.4024/09 is allowed. '
2. The correctness of the award Court in ID 156/99, after the tsssssegiastse 11.11.2005 passed by this "petition No.38390/ 2003. The Labour the Issue No.1 partly and the alleged misconduct _n_on--vcoHection of tickets amounts to the learned Presiding Officer depctincd discretionary power under see: thiefiij'-.Act, further observed that he shall not 1-~.Vinterfere_ of the management in passing the ".,g_rdve1' of which is the subject matter of an dispiite before the iabour Court for its adjudication. \\/ 3
3. The correctness of the said award is questioned by the workman before the learned Single Judge of this Who, after adverting to the relevant facts has . finding of fact on the contentious pointshof '4 "~ it that the fact recorded by the Labour VCou_rt.. issue No.2 by assigning reasonsV__'at.. theh impugned award after referring to.._RoraiV»_._and" dociurnifentary evidence of the parties on the"'ba_sis o_fficer's report is correct.
4. The in this appeal by strong reliance upon the DB rendered in WA 3/ O5 C/vtr.WA lgp5§65/ disposed of on 25.2.2005 in theficase vsslllhe Divisional Controller, NEKRTC ;:.,_whereii;._t'h_isA Vtlexaxnined categorically the facts and the VTques_tion of la*as%.r:a.1'sed in those appeals and passed an order the award of reinstatement passed by the "~."Labo1ur"Court. In the above case in exercise of its power under ml of the ID Act by reducing the punishment by '\\\/, 4 depriving the laackwages to the workman is just punishment. Therefore, the order of dismissal was set aside and orderfof reinstatement award passed by the labour Court injtlie case was accepted by this Court in the writ petitidn the"
Corporation. Therefore, Sri Subramianyaiul C Advocate for the workman, placed "reliance:"'u.pon the aforesaid decision and be applicable to this case and to quash the award of the Labour4'C.Quurt:..a'nd::'set' 'order of the learned Single
5. Sri learned counsel appearing for respondentligantd finding of fact recorded by the Lahcgur C.ourt"~0n"theleontentious issue No.1 regarding enquiry holding that same is legal and ggvalid a;cc'epted the order of dismissal passed the" wo-r}:.:n*1'an holding that misconduct alleged against workrnaii»=i.s proved on re--appreciati0n of evidence on record he did not exercise his power u/s 11A of the The learned Single Judge has examined the V 5 correctness of the same in exercise of his judicial review power, he did not find any error in the award of the labour Court, therefore, award of rejection of reference is legal and Valid, same does not call for our Further submits that the above decisiori""Gf.this which the reliance is placed have no app.l°icati_on to"th'e. Vii':
the case, hence he has requested of
6. We have carefully exiarriined thed'.tacts' the case. The point that would arise for is as to (i) whether the award 7.91' ;.S"'Qi:tiated in law? (ii) whether the Judge is vitiated in law or not'? {iii}
7. The 'aforesaid required to be answered in following reasons:
fact that misconduct of non~issue non~co*llec-ition tickets by the workman conductor is a uneier KSRTC servants [C 8: D) Regulations of _ of which the disciplinary proceedings were iv 6 initiated by issuing charge sheet enquiry was conducted under regulation 23 of the KSRTC [C&D) Regula.tionfs, Accepting the findings of the enquiry . disciplinary Authority has passed an__or_der _-'of' against the workman. The appellant had.' if dispute under Sec.10(4--A] of the'fV__Ii--1.dustrial Act, Karnataka Amendment Act of the ;Court. The appellant had concededhfithe the enquiry.
Labour Court found that there is no rejected the reference by 'dizsnfissal passed against the workinanf"-.fl'l'ie No.38290/2003. The said writ petitionlfxwas-alloureldu the matter was remitted to to.» cons.i.der the explanation and defence statenient.l:iiledv--.l:_5y "appellant produced at 13x.W1 and W2. thelfiaibour Court considered the evidence on . found that out of 67 + 7 passengers travelling in Qippéassengers had not obtained tickets and they have penalty, offence memo was served, passengers' '§\N/ 7 statement was also recorded, enquiry was held and found that the order of dismissal does not call for interference.
8. The said finding is reaffirmed by the Judge. The aforesaid Division Bench Judgment of was not brought to the notice either';:'betyyeeri_pg Court or Single Judge which decision__ is a'p.pli'cable=toV V situations. Therefore, we have the correctness of the-finding of thefrrierits of the dispute, which is affinned»i-by Judge in his order. In View referred to Supra which this case, we apply the same as vyeiare "the order of dismissal and ha'/i.n§ regard to , circumstances of the case, under Regulatio11_25_ as second show cause notice issued by ggthe Cofrporation'"l1asfV.f'riot disclosed the past service record and itakeii into' consvideration as required under the above and therefore there is statutory violation on the disciplinary Authority in passing an order of passed against the workman without taking into M] 8 consideration the extenuating and mitigating circumstances. Further the order of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of proved misconduct.
9. For the reasons stated supra, the Labour Court is quashed and the order of the 9 Judge passed in W.P.38390/2003 is set asides."'A¢¢o:i%ding1yV,..,if we set aside the order of disn1issa1.__.passe_d" by Court and modify the same in this .appea1e.Tby aliowing reinstatement without l:§ae]k;wagesg_.~ " granted continuity of service and othc-r--cons-eq1ientia1" fbenefits. This award shall jibe' the respondents Within reasonable tin1eb_uttynoti._iater 80 days from today. y eeeee Sd/...
JUDGE Sdfm §§§$E