Karnataka High Court
Ramanagouda Basanagouda Patil vs The Divisional Controller on 12 April, 2012
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
It
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
th
12
Dated this the day of April 2012
Before
ThE HON'BLE MR..JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
Writ Petition No.6343212011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
Ramanagouda Basanagouda Path,
Age: 61 years, 0cc: Conductor,
No.167, KSRTC, Hubli Rural II Depot,
Rio Agrahar Timmasasgar, Post
Anchatageri, Tq. Hubli, Dist Dharwad. ... Petitioner
(By Sri. K.L.Patil, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Divisional Controller,
NWKRTC, Hubli DMsion,
Hubli.
2. The Managing Director &
Appellate Authority, NWKRTC,
Gokul Road, Hubli. ... Respondents
This writ petition is filed under Artides 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash Annexure-D1, award
dated 21.12.2010 passed by presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Hubli, in KID No.2712008.
Li
I,
:2:
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner in K.I.D. No.27/2008 on the file of Labour Court, Hubli, has come up in this petition impugning the order dated 21.12.2010 wherein the dispute raised by him under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1987, challenging the order dated 27.12.2007 dismissing him from the service of respondent is rejected.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein was appointed as conductor in the respondent-Corporation on 03.05.197. On 24.01.2004, while he was on duty as conductor in bus bearing No.1(425/F-I 152 plying between Hubli and G.Basavanakoppa, the bus in which he was working as conductor was checked by the checking squad of the respondent-Corporation and found that the petitioner having collected fare of !51- each from four passengers had failed to issue tickets to them for their journey Ct,., :3: from Hubli to Kanavi Honnapur. Similarly, he had also collected a sum of Z3/- each from four passengers who were travelling from Hubli old-bus stand to Basaveshwaranagar. On apprehending the petitioner with the aforesaid material, enquiry proceedings was initiated by issuing articles of charges. Based on the enquiry report, the competent authority proceeded to pass the order of dismissal against the petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved by the same, initiated proceedings before the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act contending that sufficient opportunity was not given to him to defend his innocence before the Enquiry Officer and that the punishment imposed by the competent authority i shockingly disproportionate to the offence alleged against him. The Labour Court, Hubli, framed the following issues for its consideration:
"1) Whether the domestic enquiry held by the respondent against the petition is fair and proper?
p :4:
2) Whether the respondent-Corporation is justified in dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f.
27.12.2007?
3) What order?"
Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded to record findings and held issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative against the petitioner herein and dismissed his claim for setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
4. On going through the order impugned and the reasons given therein, it dearly demonstrates that no error is committed by the Labour Court in appreciating the material evidence available on record inasmuch as the petitioner herein was involved in 39 such offences prior to this. Therefore, the punishment is not shockingly disproportionate. On the other hand, it is shocking to see that how the petitioner is surviving in the respondent-Corporation even after committing so many offences and why the competent authority :5: have failed to bring him to book and see that such incompetent and corrupt employees are weeded out from the Corporation at the earliest. In fact, this is more shocldng than the punishment which is imposed by the competent authority. On going through the materials available on record, this Court feel that there is absolutely no justifiable reason to interfere with the well-reasoned award passed by the Labour Court in K.l.D. No.27/2008 on 21.12.2008. In that view of the mailer, writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the same, is dismissed without any order as to costs.
sdP 3IJDGE Kms