Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Thimmaiah on 6 October, 2023
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:36196
WP No. 38407 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.38407 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
DIVISION OFFICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THIMMAIAH
S/O NARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O MYLAPPANAHALLI,
KALAVARA POST, NANDI HOBLI,
Digitally signed by CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK,
THEJASKUMAR N AND DISTRICT - 562 101.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. THIPPESWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:36196
WP No. 38407 of 2018
ORDER
Smt.H.R.Renuka., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person. Sri.Thippeswamy., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., for respondent has appeared through video conferencing.
2. Brief facts are these:
The respondent is a Conductor in the establishment of the Corporation. He submitted a representation claiming IOD (Injury on Duty) facility for the period from 12.03.2008 to 21.06.2008. He claimed that on 29.02.2008 when he was discharging his duty in the bus bearing No. KA 07 F 642, he fell down from the bus and sustained injuries. The claim was referred to Security Investigation. The Security Officer submitted a report on 25.06.2008 stating that the claim made by the Conductor was not genuine. He was issued with Articles of Charge on 30.03.2010 alleging that he had claimed benefits of IOD (Injury on Duty) by producing fake documents and that he had also threatened the Officers that he would commit suicide. He submitted his reply and sought documents in respect of the charges alleged against him. He was subjected to -3- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 domestic inquiry. A detailed inquiry was held by providing sufficient opportunity to the respondent to defend his case. The Inquiry Officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are proved. The respondent was issued with second show cause notice on 06.01.2011 along with the findings of the inquiry officer. The respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer, taking into consideration of the grave misconduct of the workman, dismissed him from service vide order dated:20.10.2011.
The respondent questioned the order of punishment by filing a Claim Petition by raising a dispute before the II Addl. Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.93/2014. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue as regard to the validity of the domestic inquiry. The Labour Court vide order dated:15.09.2016 held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation was not fair and proper. Hence, parties led evidence on the merits of the case. The Labour Court vide award dated:10.03.2017 set-aside the order of punishment and directed to reinstate the respondent within one month from the date of order to his original post with continuity of service and -4- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 all other consequential benefits including 50% backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent have urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and the records with utmost care.
4. The point that requires consideration is whether the award of the Labour Court requires interference.
5. The facts have been sufficiently stated and do not require reiteration. Suffice it to note that the respondent came under a disciplinary proceedings for the misconduct. He contended that he fell down from the bus and sustained injuries, hence he claimed IOD (Injury on Duty). This is an interesting case of a Conductor who claimed the monetary benefits on the ground that he had suffered injury while discharging his professional duties.
6. The Labour Court on an appreciation of the evidence on record concluded that the Corporation rejected the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 claim i.e., the Corporation did not sanction the IOD (Injury on Duty) facility, hence there is no misconduct on the part of the delinquent. This finding is erroneous. It is not in dispute that on 29.02.2008, the respondent was discharging his professional duties as a Conductor in the bus that belonged to the Corporation. He claimed IOD benefits for a period of 102 days on the ground that he had suffered injury on 29.02.2008. It is interesting to note that according to the respondent the incident occurred on 29.02.2008 and he suffered injury on account of fall from bus. Though he contends that he fell down from the bus and sustained injuries, however he discharged work for a period of 15 days after the alleged incident. He also made a claim for grant of IOD benefits contending that he suffered injury.
7. The Labour Court placed reliance on Ex.W2 i.e., the Wound Certificate to hold that the respondent did suffer injury on 29.02.2008. Ex.W.2 is the Wound Certificate and it reflects that the injury suffered by the respondent was simple in nature. Therefore, the Corporation contended that the claim made by the respondent for IOD facility for simple injury is misconceived. This fact has been established by the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 Corporation. Furthermore, the investigation conducted by the Security Officer of the Corporation also established that the respondent had not taken any treatment in the Government Hospital as claimed by him. Hence, the Labour Court ought to have been more careful while placing reliance on the medical certificates. That apart, the Driver of the bus namely, Fakhruddin has given statement. The Labour Court placed much reliance on the statement of the Driver to conclude that the claim made by the respondent was just and proper. This is also untenable.
8. In my view, the Labour Court has erred in placing reliance on medical certificates and also the statement of Driver Fakhruddin. It is relevant to note that the Labour Court chose to modify the order of punishment. The Labour Court while giving finding concluded that the IOD claim was not sanctioned and hence respondent has not committed any misconduct. This finding is incorrect. The question is not that of the rejection or sanction of the claim, but furnishing of fake medical certificates in claiming IOD facility. It is not in dispute that the respondent made a representation and claimed IOD facility. Rejection or sanction is not the criteria in deciding the question of -7- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 misconduct. What is required to be considered is whether the claim made by the respondent was genuine. As already noted above, immediately after the alleged incident, the respondent attended the duty. If at all he had suffered grave injury on account of fall from the bus, he would not have attended the duty. However, attending the duty itself is sufficient to hold that he did not suffer any grave injury to enable him to claim IOD facility. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Labour Court.
Furthermore, the respondent threatened the higher officials that he would commit suicide. It is pivotal to note that the respondent is a Public Transport Employee. He being a Conductor created a story of fall from the bus and filed a false application for grant of IOD benefits. The very fact that he had discharged work for a period of 15 days after the alleged incident would show that he did not suffer any injury so as to claim IOD benefits. The IOD benefits claimed on the basis of a concocted document is a serious misconduct. Hence, the Inquiry Officer took note of the material evidence on record and justified in giving a finding that charges are proved. The disciplinary authority also justified in taking note of the findings -8- NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018 of the inquiry officer and dismissed the respondent from service. No doubt dismissal or termination is the most stringent type of disciplinary action and is only taken against employees whose misconduct is extremely unacceptable. This is a curious case of a public transport employee who abused the higher officials to cover up his wrong-doing. The respondent exhibited unethical behavior by threatening his higher officials that he would commit suicide. I may venture to say that offensive behavior in the workplace and abusive conduct of the workman is unethical. Hence, such an employee does not deserve any sympathy much less a misplaced sympathy. The Labour Court has overlooked all these aspects of the matter and erroneously chose to modify the order of punishment.
The Labour Court has failed to see that the explanation offered by the workman was extremely artificial and the same lacks credibility. In any view of the matter, the Award of Labour Court cannot be sustained. The Award of the Labour Court is otherwise erroneous and unjust. Hence, the Award of the Labour Court is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set- aside.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:36196 WP No. 38407 of 2018
9. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The Award dated:10.03.2017 in I.D.No.93/2014 passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore vide Annexure-J is quashed.
10. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1