Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Mahadeva, Adult, on 20 October, 2009
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. %
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF 0C'_I.'*'V'.-.'-§l:f3!7'tV,"O--O20(A)SS _: " T '.
THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1c_T: if »
WRIT PETITION No. 29OSO OF 200911-KSRTC)
BEI WEEN 2 A O 3 A Z V
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD '
TRANSPORT CORPORATION _ - ..
MYSORE RU_RAL;'S1)I'-fIS1GN"" "
BY ITS DIv;S1jO';:qAL"c0NT?OL1:;ER '
REPT, 'BY CHEEF LAW OI?'F"I€--ER PETITIONER
[BY SMTQ' H E?
AND: V' O
' _ TTS V1c'E"'p'm3S1DENT
. 'i{."S.R,'1'..(:;_S'~EAFF WORKERS UNION
A 'NO; 474/xA,». POS-T OFFICE ROAD
~_B"U_NNI
MYSORIJ' ~ * RESPONDENT
' '-EH13 PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227
OF CONSTITUTION OF' INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
* AWARD DT. 13.1.09, PASSED BY THE INDUSTREAL
.TR1'BUNAL, MYSORE IN REF. NO. 32/06, VIDE AN"N--D; AND
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWINGQ 3
ITK
ORDER
The petitioner, Road Transport Co_rp-o.rat.ion:having. .. employed the respondent as a__V drawer}, the bus on 28.4.2002 a_lleged~,_ accident, resulting pp in of" wheeler succumbing to the respondent was responsible for" disciplinary authority dt. 10.2.2003 followeqpeb*y,,::a and the report of the the charge was not proved.
The on an independent ass'essinent 01"'-theflfacts and circumstances and evidence E ' .record the charges proved and the findings of VOfiicer incorrect and accordingly issued notice"'«._F.'.:V<.1\/I17 enclosing a copy of the finding of the Officer, as well as the dissenting note of the l§Discip1inary authority, to show cause as to why the findings of the Disciplinary authority should not be accepted and punishment imposed. The respondent trfi filed a reply to the said show cause notice, leading to the order dt. 21.3.2004 imposing the reduction of the basic pay by two increr:ie:nta*l., That order was subject Vaof-3 proceedings under the industrial'-.l§isputes.';Act short the 'ID Act' resultingafiin a failure -ll-repsortm and a' reference by the of industrial dispute for adjudication,._be_fore 'l~ln.d--ustria1 Tribunal at Mysore, Rivas regi."'tered as Reference No.3:2/ Labour Court, the respondent filed stalterrient which was opposed by filing s_taterrient of 'o'bje_c_tivons of the petitioner. in the enquiry ' "beforef'the Labour Court, the petitioner examined .' one SririiV_fa.sVVMurthy, the Reporting Officer as lVIW--l and 20 documents as Exs.Ml to M20. The Labour ,Court having regard to the material on record held that the charge of negligent driving causing the accident and injury to the rider of a motorcycle, who succumbed to the same, as not proved and accordingly by the award ' 1 respondent was held proved. Moreover MW--1 as recorded in the documents "the driver and the motor»cyc1:i.sts:_-bothdared for the accident". In my considered opir1ior'1,A..c: theVVL-abouriit Court was fuliy j1istifiedV__v:4_i:ivV1:1»v:__1'5?91"aiHg:Litédti 1"€3S01'1S, findings and concldsioiis, findings of the Disciplinary gtittlority' findings recorded by the and that the ..
the writ petition is without merit .4 4 rej ected.
Sd/-
JUDGE