Karnataka High Court
Sri V.Ramachandra vs The Management Of Bmtc on 5 October, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.13401 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.V.RAMACHANDRA
S/O VENKATESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.100, 1ST CROSS,
1ST MAIN ROAD, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE - 560 066. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.V S NAIK, ADV.)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF BMTC
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY
CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT:H R RENUKA, ADV.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE IN I.D. NO.12/2006 [OLD NO.61/2004] DATED
24.12.2011, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED
AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE - A.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDER ON 08.03.2018 , THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the award dated 24.12.2011 passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2. While the petitioner was discharging the duties as a Driver, articles of charge was issued to him alleging that on 9.11.2002 while he was on duty the checking staff stopped the vehicle, when the vehicle entered Kempegowda Bus Stand. It was alleged that immediately after seeing the checking staff, the petitioner threw away certain tickets which were once sold in Trip No.2 through the rear side window and after the checking officials picked up those tickets and on tallying the tickets, they checked the cash held by the petitioner and noticed that he was in possession of excess cash of RS.21/-. The further allegation was that when an offence memo was being prepared, the 3 petitioner snatched 24 tickets of Rs.3/- denomination which were once issued from the hands of the Assistant Traffic Manager and by refusing to receive the offence memo got down from the bus threatening that he would give complaint to the higher authorities against the checking staff. The petitioner submitted reply on 10.12.2002 denying the allegations leveled against him. In fact, it was specifically stated by him that the checking staff misbehaved with him by making him to undress in the guise of checking the cash. He also further pleaded that Sri Ibrahim and Ravikumar, Inspectors were demanding a bribe of Rs.50/- and since the petitioner resisted the same, a false allegation came to be made against the petitioner. Since the petitioner was manhandled by the checking staff he submitted a complaint before the Upparpete Police Station apart from giving complaint to the Managing Director and the Depot Manager.
3. During inquiry, Sri Jayaprakash, Traffic Inspector was examined as a witness. The inquiry officer recorded his findings holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and the competent authority passed order of dismissal on 27.3.2004. 4
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Ist Additional Labour Court in I D No.12/2006. The Labour Court rejected the petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned award.
6. It is submitted by the petitioner that on account of paucity of change, the conductors in all such cases mention change due to the passenger on the reverse side of the ticket and once the change is paid to the passenger, that ticket will be torn. The torn pieces of the tickets found in the bus are picked up by the checking officials and a false case is leveled against the petitioner. Immediately after the check, a complaint is made to the police alleging that two persons namely, Sri Ibrahim and Sri Ravikumar who were part of the checking squad had demanded Rs.50/- as bribe money and since the petitioner did not concede, out of vengeance, the checking squad members submitted a false report. Even though specific complaint is lodged against those two officials who were part of the checking 5 squad, the respondent did not examine those two witnesses in the domestic enquiry. The Management deliberately avoided evidence of those two checking staff. The defence statement recorded before the enquiry officer on 28.3.2003 as WW-1 has remained unchallenged. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court did not consider the defence put forth by the petitioner and as such the findings recorded by him are perverse and untenable.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation supported the award passed by the Labour Court. The domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper and the punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and therefore, there is no ground for interference by this Court.
8. The fact that on 9.11.2002 the petitioner was driver cum conductor of the bus and it was intercepted by the checking inspectors is not in dispute. It is alleged that when the checking was done, the petitioner was found in possession of 32 old tickets of different denomination which were sold and accounted 6 in trip No.1 & 2, which he threw them out of the right side window and they were collected by the checking officers and proceeded with the checking. It was also alleged that the petitioner was found in possession of excess cash of RS.21/-. The third charge being, petitioner misbehaved with the checking officials when the checking officials discharging the duty. He suddenly snatched a bunch of tickets from the checking official, tore them into pieces and threw away and once again the checking officials collected them. The petitioner refused to receive the charge memo and went away abandoning the bus, cash bag, cash and also gave threat to the checking officials. The defence of the petitioner was that while returning the change due to the passengers, he collected the tickets, torn them a portion of it and threw them inside the bus which the checking officials collected and made false allegations. So far as excess cash of Rs.21/-, petitioner contended that while starting the trip, he had Rs.30/- as his personal cash which was declared and out of it, he spent Rs.10/- and remaining Rs.20/- was his personal cash.
7
9. The domestic enquiry is held to be fair and proper. Sri C Jayaprakash one of the checking officials gave evidence and deposed to the fact of checking and petitioner throwing some tickets out of the right side window and Sri Ibrahim collected them and also to the effect that cash of Rs.21/- was in excess. At the time of checking, the petitioner said that the said amount is spent and therefore they recorded the personal cash of the petitioner as nil. He has also stated that at the time of checking, the petitioner was not due to pay any change to any commuters. MW-1's evidence was that after taking signature of the petitioner to the charge memo, while preparing to write the second memo with regard to the tickets and ATM was arranging the tickets serially and voluewise and at that time all of a sudden, the petitioner snatched some of the tickets from ATM, tore them and threw them. They found 18 tickets of Rs.4/- which were issued during second trip and 7 tickets of Rd.3/- which were torn issued in the first trip and 17 tickets of Rs.3/- issued in the second trip.
10. The petitioner gave his self defence statement and got marked Ex.D1 to D3 and requested the inquiry officer to treat it 8 as his written argument. After closure of his self defence statement, he has stated that he is not having any other evidence and it may be treated as his final arguments. Ex.M7 is his self defence statement and no oral evidence was led so as to expect the management to cross-examine him.
11. The petitioner has failed to establish that the checking officials had any ill will or motive to falsely implicate him or that he has been victimized. He has also failed to establish that at the time of checking, he was assaulted by the checking officials forcing him to take the treatment and also lodge criminal complaint.
12. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner stated that checking officials Ibrahim and Ravikumar acted high handedly and assaulted him and he has lodged complaint etc., The petitioner has failed to bring out any circumstance to show that the enquiry findings are perverse and that the allegations against him are not proved. The petitioner was found to have committed misconduct of pilferage and also not cooperated with the checking officials. He went to the extent of lodging a false 9 complaint against the checking officials. If really his allegations were to be true, nothing prevented to substantiate the same in the domestic enquiry. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that it is not a case for interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE akd