Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller, vs Shivashakar Gurulingappa on 4 February, 2014
Author: Mohan M Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION No.63473/2012 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
N.E.K.R.T.C. GULBARGA DIVISION
GULBARGA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER
NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE
SAREGE SADANA GULBARGA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUDHIRSING R. VIJAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVASHANKAR GURULINGAPPA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
P.NO.6133, DEPOT NO.I
GULBARGA
R/O KSRTC QUARTERS, NO.21
II FLOOR, BEHIND S.B. COLLEGE
GULBARGA
... RESPONDENT
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
AWARD IN I.D.NO.78/2009 DATED 17.03.2011 AWARD OF
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL COURT, HUBLI (ANNEXURE-A) AND IN
UPHOLDING ORDER FOR PUNISHMENT ISSUED TO THE
RESPONDENT HAS ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner/Corporation has sought for quashing the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.78/2009 under which the workman is exonerated from the charges.
2. Respondent is the driver working under petitioner-Corporation. Charge sheet came to be issued by the petitioner against the respondent with an allegation that the respondent drove the bus bearing No.CAF-9128 in a rash and negligent manner near Sindhanoor and dashed against the tractor. As a result of the same, 10 passengers sustained injuries. The -3- enquiry was conducted and enquiry officer has concluded against the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the material held that the charge is established and imposed punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect. The said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was the subject matter in I.D.No.78/2009 before the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. The Tribunal concluded that the charges are not proved against the respondent and thereby, exonerated the respondent.
3. The Tribunal having held that the enquiry conducted against the respondent was not fair and proper permitted both the parties to lead evidence. On behalf of the management, Officer was examined as MW.1. On behalf of the workman, he himself examined as WW.1. The management witness (MW.1) has deposed that the reporter who was supposed to depose before the Court is not alive and thus MW.1 is deposed based on the document made available by the -4- management. He does not have the personal knowledge of the incident in question. MW.1 has referred to Exs.M1 and M6 which are the report of the reporter and the evidence of the reporter tendered before the enquiry officer. The reporter had deposed before the enquiry officer to the effect that on seeing the tractor from the opposite direction, the workman took the bus to the extreme left side and consequently, the accident has occurred. This evidence is being relied by MW.1 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has not given much importance to the evidence of the reporter tendered before the enquiry officer in view of the fact that the reporter is not available for being cross- examined. The evidence of MW.1 is purely based on the material produced by the management. He does not have personal knowledge of the incident. No sketch of scene of incident is produced on record. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the -5- case, principles of doctrine of res ipsa of loquitur cannot be applied.
4. On the other hand, evidence of the workman discloses that some of the passengers were travelling on the top of the bus and being afraid of the manner in which the tractor was moving, those passengers who were on the top of the bus, jumped and sustained minor injuries. In the cross-examination, WW.1 has deposed that he saw the tractor moving on zig-zag manner from distance of 20 feet and according to him, accident was inevitable.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court on facts has concluded in favour of the workman. The said finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court does not appear to be unreasonable. In view of the same, this Court declines to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.
-6-
Accordingly, the petition fails and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*