IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.52018 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) Between:
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Mangalore Division, Mangalore By its Divisional Controller Rep. by its Chief Law Officer. …Petitioner (By Smt. Renuka H.R., Advocate) And:
A. Padmanabhan Adult, Driver Badge No.54, Represented by the General Secretary, KSRTC Staff and Workers Union, II Floor, KSRTC Bus Stand, Bejai, Mangaluru – 575 004. …Respondent (By Sri. A. Keshava Bhat, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, praying to quash the award dated 05.12.2014 in Ref. No.162/2012 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (Annexure-F) and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER In the instant petition, petitioner has assailed the order of the Tribunal dated 05.12.2014 passed in Reference No.162/2012.
2. Respondent was a driver with the petitioner- Corporation. On 24.10.2007, in Route No.104-105, respondent was driving a Volvo bus bearing registration No.KA-01-F-8044 from Mangaluru to Bengaluru via Madikeri. Respondent came to know that oil sump was broken and oil was leaking from the vehicle and he has noticed at Mercara. But, still he drove the vehicle from Mercara to Mysuru and in Mysuru, it was rectified by the Technicians. In this process, Turbo Charger of the vehicle was damaged whereby, Corporation was put into a loss for a sum of Rs.68,274/-.
3. Arising out of these events, respondent was charge sheeted on 01.07.2008. He had submitted his explanation on 26.07.2008. Dissatisfied by the respondent’s explanation, petitioner proceeded to hold a domestic enquiry and imposed penalty of recovery of one month salary in twenty installments and further, initial pay has been reduced to one stage for a period of one year (without cumulative effect). Dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of penalty, respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the Reference No.162/2012 in favour of the respondent by holding that there is no negligence on the part of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Tribunal has failed to appraise the negligence on the part of the respondent on the fact that respondent had noticed leakage of oil sump of the vehicle at Mercera. But, still he drove the vehicle to Mysuru, whereby the Turbo Charger of the vehicle got damaged and petitioner was put into loss for a sum of Rs.68,274/-. Whereas, the Tribunal has taken note of such damage of oil sump of the vehicle as due to technical problem and not due to negligence on the part of the respondent.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent resisted the petitioner’s contention. He submitted that on instructions of Unit Head, respondent proceeded to Mysuru despite of leakage of oil and it was during the night time. In order to avoid inconvenience to the passengers of the bus, respondent drove the bus from Mercara to Mysuru. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the respondent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Tribunal has not appreciated the conduct and negligence of the respondent insofar as driving the vehicle from Mercara to Mysuru. It is to be noted that vehicle was moving from Mangaluru to Bengaluru via Madikeri. Respondent noticed leakage of oil sump of the vehicle at Mercara. Instead of getting it repaired at Mercara, he drove the bus from Mercara to Mysuru, whereby Turbo Charger of the vehicle got damaged. Thus, there is negligence on the part of the respondent in driving the damaged vehicle relating to leakage of oil sump. Such driving of the damaged vehicle from Mercara to Mysuru resulted in damage of the Turbo Charger and caused financial loss to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.68,274/-. It is evident that there is negligence on the part of the respondent as is evident from his cross-examination, wherein he has admitted. Extract of respondent’s evidence reads as under:
“Cross-examination by Sri. SAS., Advocate for the Second Party:
It is true to suggest that on 24-10-2007, while I was driving the bus bearing KA-01-F- 8044 on Mangalore-Bengaluru route, its oil sump was damaged at Mercara. It is true to suggest that inspite of the leakage of engine oil, I keep on moving the said bus towards Bangalore. It is true to suggest that due to moving of the said but in the said condition, its turbo charger was damaged. It is not true to suggest that due to my negligent driving in moving the bus while its oil sump was damaged, the trubo charger of the bus suffered damage. It might be true that the Second Party incurred loss to the tune of Rs.68,274/- towards repair of the said Volvo bus. It is not true to suggest that if I drove the bus cautiously and diligently, such damage to the bus would not have occurred. Witness volunteers that due to the worst condition of the road such damage was caused to the bus. It is not true to suggest that the Second Party Corporation incurred such loss due to my negligence in driving the bus.”
8. In view of these facts and circumstances, Tribunal has erred in allowing Reference No.162/2012. Accordingly, award passed by the Tribunal dated 05.12.2014 is set aside. Writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM