Karnataka High Court
The North West Karnataka Road Transport vs S S Gudihal Driver Ksrtc on 16 July, 2012
Author: S.Abdul Nazeer
Bench: S. Abdul Nazeer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
WRIT PETITION NO.15220/2006 (L-KSRTC)
Between:
The North West Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation,
U.K.Division, Sirsi,
Reptd.by its Chief Law Officer,
NWKRTC Central Office,
Hubli. .... Petitioner.
(By Sri Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, Adv.)
And:
S.S.Gudihal,
Driver, KSRTC,
At & PO: Hirekeruru,
Tq. & Dist. Haveri. ..... Respondent.
(By Sri V.S.Naik & Smt. Manjula N. Kulkarni, Advs.)
---
2
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 5.10.2005
passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, in
Ref.No.97/1995, etc.
This Writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court passed the following:
ORDER
The respondent had been working with the North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli, as a Driver. He was issued with articles of charges dated 10.2.1992 alleging that on 11.8.1991 while he was performing his duty as driver in KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-09 F-1044 on Hirekerur Bangalore Road, he had dashed the bus to an on-coming lorry, on account of which, the bus fell down by the side of the road and it was heavily damaged. About 10 passengers travelling in the bus were also injured. The petitioner has sent a reply denying the charge. The Divisional Traffic Officer has passed an order of punishment as per Annexure 'C' by reducing one increment for a period of three years. The respondent raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after considering the matter in 3 detail, has allowed the reference and the order impugned therein was set aside. The Corporation has assailed the said order in this writ petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that the punishment imposed is a minor punishment. Therefore, question of holding a detailed enquiry does not arise. The Labour Court was not right in allowing the reference.
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has sought to justify the impugned order.
4. As noticed above, the punishment imposed on the respondent was reduction of one increment for a period of three years. Admittedly, no enquiry has been conducted as per the relevant Regulations. In ANKAPPA VS. MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC, BANGALORE - ILR 1996 KAR 3050, this Court has held that an enquiry would become unnecessary only in case the disciplinary authority considered it to be so and recorded its 4 opinion in express terms on the said issue. While considering any such question of either holding or dispensing with an enquiry, the disciplinary authority was bound to consider in a fair and objective manner the nature of the charges levelled against the employees but also nature of the evidence set up by him. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has not recorded its opinion for dispensing with the enquiry. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. In HUBERT LOBO VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE AND OTHERS - 1997 (4) KLJ 524, this Court has held that if the punishment imposed is a major penalty, then a detailed enquiry has to be conducted. This Court has further held that withholding of an increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect is a major punishment. In the present case, one increment has been withheld for a period of three years without any cumulative effect. The respondent has pleaded that he is not responsible for the accident in any manner. In the circumstances, the disciplinary authority ought to have held an enquiry. I am of the view that the 5 order impugned does not call for interference. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
BMM/-