Karnataka High Court
B.N. Jayaram vs The Divisional Controller K S R T C on 20 September, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.7241/2015 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
B.N. Jayaram,
S/o Nanjegowda,
Aged about 59 years,
Working as Traffic Controller,
K.S.R.T.C,
Shivamogga Bus Stand,
Shivamogga - 577 201.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Shekar .L, Advocate)
And
The Divisional Controller,
K.S.R.T.C,
Davanagere Division,
Davanagere - 577 001.
... Respondent
(By Smt. H.R. Renuka, Advocate)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned
award dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal,
Hubli in I.D. No.123/2012 vide Annexure-A and etc.,
This petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner who was an employee of the respondent- Corporation, has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the impugned award dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Hubli in I.D No.123/2012 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and direct the respondent to pay all consequential benefits arising out of setting aside the award of the Labour Court.
2. It is case of the petitioner that he was working as Traffic Controller in the respondent-Corporation. The petitioner had maintained a blemishless service record. An article of charge has been issued by the respondent to the petitioner on 06.02.2006 alleging that petitioner neither collected nor issued one ticket of Rs.24/- denomination. On issuance of charge memo on 06.02.2006, case of the petitioner considered and in terms of Regulation 22 an order of punishment was passed as per Annexure-D order dated 31.08.2006 reducing the petitioner's basic pay by two 3 incremental stage permanently by invoking Regulation 18A (VI) of the KSRTC C & D Regulation 1971 and the learned presiding officer after hearing the matter on merits by its award dated 19.03.2014, rejected the reference against which the petitioner has approached this Court contending that imposition of such punishment without holding enquiry is not sustainable.
3. The impugned action of the respondent in imposing punishment withholding of increment with cumulative effect to be treated as major punishment and it is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Hubert Lobo vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore and others reported in 1997(4) Kar. L. J 524 and in Ankappa vs. Management of KSRTC, Bengaluru reported in ILR 1996 KAR 3050 where it is held that withholding of increments with cumulative effect to be treated as major punishment for which Regulation 23 should have been indicated in the order passed by the respondent in punishing 4 the petitioner by withholding of increments with cumulative effect. It is contrary to law and therefore the impugned punishment order is to be set aside. He has also challenged the procedure in issuing the charge which did not contain list of documents and witnesses. On that ground also petitioner is to succeed and order of punishment is to be set aside.
4. Other submission with reference to industrial dispute is that the materials and evidence placed before the Court is not considered. The issues of which the respondent has to prove justification of punishment without enquiry has not been established. The statement made by the petitioner is that charge does not disclose the statement of imputation, list of documents and witnesses which has not been considered. It is further submission of petitioner that on merit, on the particular day, Junior Assistant checked the bus and issued penalty receipt and he is incompetent to check the bus and in addition to it, Junior Assistant has also been examined on 5 behalf of respondent. It is an error, which ought to have been considered by the Labour Court.
5. As per Regulation 23 which provides proceedings for major penalties. It contemplates that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses 9-10 of Regulation 18 shall be accepted without enquiry. The punishment imposed is a major punishment whereas the respondent has instead of invoking Regulation 23 has invoked Regulation 22 which is minor punishments. This irregularity on the part of respondent has not been examined though it was made out before the Labour Court. Hence the impugned award suffers from irregularity. The penalty receipt does not contain address so as to examine the said passenger.
6 The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that in order to prove charge the management has examined its officer as per MW1 and marked documents as per Ex. M1 to M15 and under the said 6 circumstances, the order is perfectly sustainable in the eye of law and therefore there is no ground to interfere.
7. The impugned order of punishment passed by the respondent is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Regulation 22 of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971. The respondent has not assigned any valid reasons to dispense with the enquiry. Therefore, the very imposition of punishment is contrary to law and therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent and the order passed by the Labour Court.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as a Traffic controller in the respondent-Corporation. The Corporation issued Article of charge alleging that the petitioner neither collected nor issued one ticket of Rs.24/- denomination.
9. In the instant case the respondent has violated the provisions of invoking Regulation 23 of the regulations. The 7 Labour Court framed two points ie., (2) whether the petition is stale on account of delay in raising the dispute after lapse of 5 years 4 months? and the said point has been answered against first party. In this regard though limitation has been prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 for the purpose of opportunity, who might have approached the Court only within a reasonable time of 5 years is not a reasonable time though limitation is not prescribed.
10. Accordingly, the labour Court rejected the industrial dispute on the ground that the petitioner is having history sheet and as it comes out in the evidence of MW1 that he had got history sheet of 58 cases.
11. I have gone through the substance of charges. The reply of the petitioner to the charges alleged against him is that he had issued tickets to all the passengers collecting the fare amount, but one passenger had lost his ticket while in journey. The checking squad treated him as ticket-less passenger and forced the passenger to pay penalty. There is 8 clear violation of circular instructions by the petitioner which is not denied by the petitioner in his reply to the Article of charge. Therefore, the reply of the petitioner confirmed that he has committed misconduct as alleged against him. The question of holding a disciplinary enquiry in respect of undisputed fact would not arise. There are no good reasons to differ from the view expressed by the respondent counsel and the order passed by Labour Court. No illegality or infirmity in the communication issued by the respondent-Corporation. Hence there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, this petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE LL