Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller vs Sri M D Prasanthkumar on 27 March, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.10369/2015 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC,
BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION,
SHANTHINAGAR, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF LAW OFFICE, K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B L SANJEEV, ADV.)
AND:
SRI M D PRASANTHKUMAR
S/O M.L.DEVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/O MANJURA VILLAGE,
KALLALE POST,
VINAYAK NAGAR,
SAKALESHPUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.R RADHA, ADV. FOR C/R )
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
QUASHING THE AWARD DT:23/08/2014 PASSED BY THE III
ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE IN I.D.NO.24/2013,
PRODUCED ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
It is reported that on 12th May, 2011 while the vehicle bearing No.KA-40-F523 belonging to the petitioner-Corporation, which was driven by the respondent-workman which it was running between Somavarpet-Bangalore, at about 14.00 hours accident took place and the impact of which was four persons traveling in the autorickshaw that involved in the accident died on the spot. It came in the newspapers that 12 persons were traveling in the autorickshaw and the driver of the autorickshaw lost control and dashed against the State Corporation vehicle resulting in death. In that regard, show-cause notice-cum- charge sheet was issued to the respondent-workman alleging that he had committed an accident because of his rash and negligent driving and with it the Corporation had lost about 3 Rs.18,00,000/- to be payable as compensation to the victims. The respondent was working as a Trainee Driver and in spite of taking care, he committed the accident. To the show-cause notice the respondent-workman had made a reply and in that he had stated that it was not the fault of the bus; on the other hand it is the fault of the autorickshaw driver who has lost control since he was carrying 12 persons in the vehicle as against the minimum passengers and dashed against the bus of the Petitioner-Corporation and the accident has taken place in the middle of the road and the right side of the bus has been damaged. He has also stated that, the Autorickshaw, instead of proceeding on the left side of the road, had come almost to the middle of the road and it shows that it is the autorickshaw driver who has caused the accident and not the respondent-workman. Accordingly, an enquiry was initiated and in the enquiry it was held that the charges leveled against the workman was proved which culminated in dismissal of the respondent-workman from service by its order dated 29th November 2012. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, the workman preferred a claim petition before the Labour Court in ID No.24 of 2013 under Section 10(4- 4 A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The prayer made in the claim petition is to set aside the order dated 29th November 2012 and reinstate him into service. The Petitioner-Second Party filed counter statement. The Labour Court framed preliminary issues as to whether the enquiry held against the first party is fair and proper and has been answered in the affirmative. After recording the evidence of both the sides, an award was passed directing the second party to reinstate the first party-the respondent herein into service with consequential benefits. The order of removing the respondent-workman from service dated 29th November 2012 was set aside. Reasons have been assigned at paragraph 12 of award to the effect that it was not the driver of the first party who caused the accident, it is the autorickshaw who has caused accident. This petition is by the second party-Corporation against the said award of the Labour Court.
2. The ground taken by the petitioner is that when it is held by the Labour Court the enquiry held is fair and proper, the Labour Court should not have interfered with in the matter. The 5 reasons assigned by the Labour Court and directing the second party to reinstate the first party into service is perverse and illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of the NORTHWEST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. S.L. HOSUR reported in ILR 2001 KAR 5539 and referred to paragraph 12 of the judgment wherein it is held that "any leniency in these cases would result in unwanted, unfortunate accident resulting in loss in life of innocent public." The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KULDEEP SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH passed in Criminal Appeal disposed of on 16th July 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.No.1944 of 2008) by referring to the judgment in the case of DALBIR SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2000(5) SCC 82 wherein it is held that "the court shall not take any misplaced sympathy for wrong doers".
3. The respondent though entered has not represented. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the lower court records. From the records it is seen that as per 6 the sketch Exhibit M3 shows that the bus in which the respondent-workman was driver was proceeding towards Bangalore and the accident spot is the middle of the road. The autorickshaw which was supposed to proceed on the left side of the road had almost crossed and came to the middle of the road and dashed against the bus. The impact is such that four persons in the autorikchsaw died on the spot and the autorickshaw got damaged to its maximum. There were 12 passengers in the autorickshaw and the driver of the auto lost control and dashed against the bus. It is not in dispute that it is reported in the newspapers and the police records also show that 12 passengers were traveling in the autorickshaw which is illegal and contrary to the Motor Vehicles Act. When the Act says as to the seating capacity in the vehicle, contrary to the same, the driver of the autorickshaw has committed illegality which contrary to the provisions of law by accommodating 12 persons and probably he must have lost control and he himself has contributed and caused the accident. In the cases of this care, it shall be that not only the driver of the bus but also the driver of the colluding vehicle also should be examined. On behalf of the 7 petitioner no other evidence is placed on record to show that it was only the driver who has committed the accident. It has been discussed by the Labour Court that, nobody has spoken about this circumstance and absolutely there is no evidence on record that immediately before the collision between two vehicles, the workman was racing on the road with the two- wheeler. Under the circumstance, the Labour Court has held properly by assigning reasons that the petitioner-Corporation has not proved its case to reach the conclusion that it is only the workman who has contributed to the accident.
4. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been examined in the light of the records in the case on hand. It is found that there are no much records available to show that the workman has committed the accident. The workman was to the left side of the road and the autorickshaw also should have gone on its left side, instead it came to be middle of the road and dashed the Corporation Bus from the right side. Under the circumstance, I hold that the Labour Court has rightly set aside the order of termination dated 8 29th November 2012 and directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate the respondent-workman into service and for the said purpose the reasons assigned by the Labour Court at paragraph 12 of the Award are sound and proper and there are no good grounds made out by the petitioner to interfere in this case. Petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE lnn