Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs P Ananda on 6 June, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.40904/2011 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
MANGALORE DIVISION,
MANGALORE,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REP. BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADV.)
AND:
P. ANANDA
S/O. GURUVA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
'PETHAMOGARU HOUSE',
PUNACHA VILLAGE,
PARIALTHADKA POST,
BANTWAL TALUK. ... RESPONDENT
(RESPONDENT IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE AWARD DATED 31.01.2011 IN IDA NO.18/2005
BY THE LABOUR COURT, MANGALORE, D.K. VIDE
ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the award dated 31.01.2011 passed in I.D.A.No.18/2005. Through the said award, the Labour Court, Mangalore has directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and ordered payment of 50% back wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by such direction is before this Court in this petition.
2. The respondent though served is unrepresented.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that, pursuant to the award, though subject to result of the writ petition, the reinstatement was sought to be made so as to extract work, the respondent has not worked subsequent to 07.07.2012. In that view, service on the respondent through the employer is also not possible and in that circumstance, the petition is being considered in the absence of the respondent. 3
4. The allegation against the respondent was that, while he was working on the route Bangalore to Hassan on 25.11.2002 and the bus was checked before it reached Kunigal, the checking staff found that he had not issued tickets to 13 passengers, who were traveling from Bangalore to Hassan, at Rs.64/- per passenger. In that regard, a charge sheet dated 19.12.2002 was issued, enquiry was held and on the charge being proved, the dismissal order dated 02.06.2005 was passed. While doing so, the petitioner-Management had also kept in view that the respondent had committed similar acts on 24 earlier occasions.
5. The respondent herein claiming to be aggrieved by the order of dismissal had raised a dispute by filing an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act which was registered in I.D.A.No.18/2005. The Labour Court had framed three points for its consideration and on considering the issue No.1 relating to validity of the enquiry, has held the same to be just and fair. However, while taking note of 4 the validity of the findings rendered by the Enquiry Officer, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion, the Enquiry Officer has not properly appreciated the material on record and in that view, has arrived at the conclusion that the charge alleged against the respondent is not proved and in that circumstance, has granted the relief.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award passed by the Labour Court would refer to the documents that had been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer as also the cross-examination of the workman, wherein he has admitted to the checking staff having collected the fine from the passengers, who were found without tickets and in that view, it is pointed out, when it is a case of non issue of tickets and non collection of the fares, the Labour Court could not have come to the conclusion with regard to the charge by holding that the checking staff not having counted the money has resulted in the petitioner-Management arriving at a wrong conclusion. In that view, having 5 referred to the documents and the findings rendered by the Labour Court, the learned counsel would contend that the finding as rendered is not justified.
7. In the light of the contention, a perusal of the reasoning assigned by the Labour Court would indicate that it has mainly referred to the evidence of MW-2, who had accompanied the checking staff and the statement made by him with regard to the Conductor not having collected the fare and not having issued the tickets. It is in that view, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the checking staff had not ascertained the actual money that was available with the Conductor.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such conclusion as reached by the Labour Court is not justified when the very case of the Management was that neither the ticket was issued nor the fare was collected. In such circumstance, the verification of the cash with the conductor would not have been justified and such requirement was necessary only if the case was that he had collected the fare and 6 not issued the tickets. Therefore, the conclusion to that effect by the Labour Court is not justified.
9. That apart, from the cross-examination of the respondent, it is seen that he has admitted that the passengers, who were traveling without tickets had admitted to the said position and had paid the penalty. He has also admitted that he has subscribed his signature to the receipt for the passengers having paid the penalty. It is however seen that, he has thereafter added, such signature was taken by force. Merely because, he has stated that such signature was taken by force, the same cannot be an aspect to be taken into consideration to discard the fact that the passengers had paid the penalty, since they had not paid the fare and purchased the tickets. Despite the said position where there was sufficient material available on record to indicate that the respondent had not issued the tickets and the passengers traveling without tickets had paid the penalty and the same had also been admitted, the Labour Court has assumed that the passengers would 7 have paid the penalty out of fear of handing them over to the Police. Such conclusion without any material to that effect, more particularly, since no attempt was made to get this fact out would indicate that the same is only an assumption by the Court below to arrive at such conclusion.
10. In addition, what is necessary to be taken note is that, in the circumstance where sufficient evidence was available before the Enquiry Officer and all the records being available before the Labour Court, the Labour Court has not in fact referred to the said documents which had been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer but, has drawn its own conclusion on assumptions. Therefore, in that circumstance, when the evidence has not been properly appreciated, this Court is of the opinion that there is perversity in the findings of the Labour Court to arrive at its conclusion. Further, what is also to be taken note is that, in the present circumstance when the charge has been proved and it is also seen that the respondent had involved himself in 8 similar misconducts on 24 earlier occasions, no lenient view can also be taken in the instant case.
11. Therefore, if all these aspects of the matter are kept in view, the conclusion as reached by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. The award dated 31.01.2011 in I.D.A.No.18/2005 is accordingly set aside.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST