Karnataka High Court
G Devarajaiah vs The Divisional Controller Ksrtc on 22 February, 2016
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.54221/2013 (L-KSRTC)
c/w
WRIT PETITION No.15111/2013 (L-KSRTC)
W.P.No.54221/2013
BETWEEN:
G DEVARAJAIAH
S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
C/O SHIVAMURTHY
DOOR NO.52, 1ST MAIN
CAUVERY PURA
KAMAKSHI PALYA
BANGALORE-560 079
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION
TUMKUR-572 101
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HAREESH BANDARY T, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATED 29.05.2012, PASSED IN
ID.NO.115/2010, FOUND AT ANN-A TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN
SO FAR AS MODIFICATION OF THE PUNISHMENT ORDER
DATED 13.09.2000 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
2
W.P.No.15111/2013
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER OF KSRTC
TUMKUR DIVISION
NOW REPRESENTED BY IT'S
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HAREESH BANDARY T, ADV.)
AND:
SRI G DEVARAJAIAH
S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
C/O GENERAL SECRETARY
KSRTC/BMTC
SAMYUKTA KARMIKARA SANGHA
NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD
MATHIKERE,
BANGALORE-560 054
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUAH THE
AWARD PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
DATED 29.05.2012 IN I.D.NO.115/2010 VIDE ANN-D AND CALL
FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL HUBLI, DATED 29.05.2012 IN I.D.NO.115/2010.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMANARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioner-Management in W.P.No.15111/2013 is assailing the award dated 29.05.2012 passed in ID No.115/2010. The workman concerned is assailing the very same award in W.P.No.54221/2013.
2. The petitions in that view are taken up together and are being disposed of by this order. Since the array of the parties is different in the two petitions, they are referred to as Management and Workman wherever the need arises.
3. The workman is a conductor working in the Management-Corporation. On holding an enquiry and establishing the charge against the workman, the order dated 13.09.2000 was passed imposing the punishment of reduction of pay by one incremental stage permanently. The workman raised a dispute with regard to the same which came to be referred in I.D.No.115/2010. The 4 Industrial Tribunal after referring to the entire aspect of the matter, though held that the charge as made against the workman is proved, was of the opinion that the punishment as imposed requires to be modified and in that view by its award dated 29.05.2012 has modified the punishment to that of withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect. The management claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in the petition filed by them, while the workman has assailed the award insofar as not completely exonerating him from the charge.
4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the petition papers.
5. Firstly the Management had contended before the Court below that there is long delay of nine years in raising the dispute and as such the reference ought to have been rejected on that ground itself. The Industrial 5 Tribunal however on taking note of the circumstance arising in the case has arrived at the conclusion that the delay is to be condoned and the matter is to be considered on merits.
6. Learned counsel for the management while assailing such finding of the Industrial Tribunal has relied on the decision in the case of Prabhakar vs. Joint Director Sericulture Department and others (Manu/SC/1041/2015). A perusal of the said decision no doubt is reassertion of the position of law as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though no specific period of limitation is prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, yet stale claims should not be entertained by the Courts.
7. No doubt, in the instant case, the reference was made in the year 2010 in respect of a punishment order dated 13.09.2000. The circumstance which had been 6 explained therein was that against the order of punishment passed against the workman, he had filed an appeal which was pending consideration before the appellate authority and no order had been passed. The said explanation as putforth has been accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. The learned counsel for the management would however refer to the cross examination portion of the workman who had been examined as WW.1 to contend that the very appeal having been filed by the workman would be doubtful in the light of the answer that has been given. Even if the same is kept in view, in my opinion, it cannot lead to a conclusion that the workman had not filed any appeal at all. All that has been answered therein is that he had not made any representation or reminder. When an appeal is filed, it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of same and the need for filing a representation or reminder would not arise.
7
8. Be that as it may, even otherwise, in the present facts, when the workman had continued to remain in service and in that light, when the punishment was that of withholding one increment without cumulative effect, the punishment would continue and the financial effect would be felt subsequently. In any event the punishment has been maintained in a different form. The consideration on merits as made in the present facts cannot be found fault with.
9. In that direction, a perusal of the award would indicate that the Industrial Tribunal has thereafter referred to the evidence that had been tendered by the parties extensively and on taking note of the evidence of MW.1 and the documents relied on at Exhs.M1 to M21 has no doubt upheld the charge that had been alleged against the workman and did not find any defect in the enquiry nor the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer. 8
10. It is in that circumstance the Industrial Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to find out as to whether the punishment imposed is justified. No doubt, in a normal circumstance, the exercise of discretion under Section 11A of the Act would arise only in the circumstance where the punishment imposed is the extreme punishment of discharge/dismissal or removal from service in any other manner. Even if that be the position, what the Industrial Tribunal has also kept in view is with regard to the effect of the punishment that had been imposed, more particularly in a circumstance where the workman concerned had rendered more than 20 years of service. There was no other earlier punishment that had been imposed, it is in that light the discretion has been exercised to confirm the punishment but in a different manner by limiting it to a period of one year so that there is no serious prejudice to the workman concerned in view of the punishment.
9
11. Taking into consideration the overall view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the award does not call for interference and therefore, neither the consideration as sought by the Management nor by the Workman in respect of the award is necessary in the instant facts.
Hence both the petitions in W.P.Nos.54221/2013 and 15111/2013 are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms