IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.17030 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., MYSORE RURAL DIVISION, MYSORE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.
(BY SRI.SANJEEV B.L, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.M.D.HUSSAIN S/O MOHAMMED AMIR SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, C/O RAMAIAH, HOUSE NO.452, NEW EXTENSION, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSORE – 576 007.
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS), LABOUR DEPARTMENT, KARMIKA BHAVANA, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 029.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.D.HUSSAIN, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R1; BY SRI.C.N.MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTED 27.03.2017 PASSED BY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN) AT ANNEXURE – K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The management of KSRTC is invoking the writ jurisdiction for laying a challenge to the order dated 27.03.2017, a copy whereof is at Annexure-K, whereby sanction has been accorded for prosecuting it’s officials for not complying with the award dated 11.10.2010 by making payment in terms thereof.
2. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:
“DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: LJJ-2/¹Dgï-04/2014-15, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.03.2017.
DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÁdå gÀ¸ÉÛ ¸ÁjUÉ ¤UÀªÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ L.L.r.
¸ÀASÉå:26/2005, ¢£ÁAPÀ:11.10.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ Lwæð£À£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀqÁØAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ºÉÆAzÀĪÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¦.J¥sï ¨ÁQ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ qÉvï ¥sÀAqï ºÀtzÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉìÄgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtðªÁV PÁAiÀÄðUÀvÀUÉƽ¸À¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ½AzÀ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ, DqÀ½vÀªÀUÀðzÀªÀgÁzÀ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ºÀÆqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ, ²æà JA.r.ºÀĸÉãï, PÉÃgÁ¥sï: gÁªÀÄAiÀÄå, ªÀÄ£É £ÀA:452, ºÉƸÀ §qÁªÀuÉ, J£ï.Dgï.ªÉƺÀ¯Áè, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ-7 EªÀgÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁj, PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹. ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ºÀÆqÀ®Ä C£ÀĪÀÄwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.
PÁ«ÄðPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ”
3. After service of notice, the first respondent- workman having participated in the proceedings, argued the matter contending that no payment in terms of the award has been made, as yet and despite repeated demand. The second respondent-Labour Commissioner having been represented by the learned AGA Sri. C.N.Mahadeshwaran, submits that the impugned order granting sanction for prosecution has been made taking into consideration the version put forth by both the contending sides; even if the prosecution is launched all defences are open for the petitioner-Management to take up and therefore, the writ Court shall not entertain the complaint of the petitioner.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and second respondent and also the respondent workman in person, and having perused the petition papers as also the papers now produced by a memo by the petitioner, this Court is of a considered opinion that the grant of sanction for prosecution is bad for the following reasons:
(a) in first respondent workman’s I.I.D No.26/2005, an award came to be made by the Labour Court on 11.10.2010, as per Annexure-A, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service came to be downgraded to that of compulsory retirement; a direction was issued to the petitioner – KSRTC to pay all monetary benefits consequent to such compulsory retirement; the challenge to the said award by first respondent in W.P.No.40131/2014 (L-KSRTC) came to be negatived by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 27.08.2019 wherein the operative portion reads as under:
“4. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner having accepted the award cannot approbate and reprobate by seeking different reliefs in different forums. Petition stands dismissed.”
b) The petitioner KSRTC management has produced a letter dated 05.04.2017 which reads as under:
“«µÀAiÀÄ: £ËPÀgÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀt-ªÀ-¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¤¢ü¬ÄAzÀ ²æà ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ºÀĸÉãïgÀªÀgÀ CAwªÀÄ C¨sÀåxÀð£À EvÀåxÀðªÁVgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.
G¯ÉèÃR: PÀgÁ¸Á/ZÁ«/PÁ£ÀÆ£À/19/17-18 ¢.05.04.17.
ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ²æà ªÀĺÀªÀÄzï ºÀĸÉãï, ªÀiÁf ZÁ®PÀ, ©¯Éè ¸ÀASÉå 6097, PÉƼÉîÃUÁ® WÀlPÀ, ZÁªÀÄgÁd£ÀUÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ, EªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.01.2005gÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ªÀeÁUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸À®è¨ÉÃPÁzÀ £ËPÀgÀgÀÀ ªÀÄgÀt-ªÀ-
¤ªÀÈwÛ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ ¤¢üAiÀÄ ¸Ë®¨sÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.11.2005 gÀAzÀÄ ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå562410 gÀÆ.6,782/-UÀ¼ÀÄ PÁ¥ÉÆÃðgÉõÀ£ï ¨ÁåAPï, ±ÁAw£ÀUÀgÀ ±ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, E°è EvÀåxÀðUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.”
The said letter mentions of the payment of money due under the award in favour of the first respondent workman by Corporation Bank cheques. The Statement of Accounts issued to the said Bank prima facie shows that these cheques have been encashed by the first respondent workman;
c) as already mentioned above, the challenge to the award by the first respondent was negatived by the Co- ordinate bench of this Court on the ground that first respondent has accepted the award and therefore, he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate; and d) The Apex Court in the case of PEPSI FOODS LTD. V/S SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE & OTHERS, AIR 1998 SC 128 has held that the setting in motion the criminal law is a serious matter; in the absence of cogent material for granting sanction for prosecution, such sanction is legally unsustainable; an argument to the contrary would offend the guarantees of right to freedom and liberties enshrined in part III of Constitution of India, more specially when the public officials are sought to be prosecuted. All these above aspects have not been adverted to by the respondent Labour Commissioner in granting sanction for prosecution In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE UN