IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.19443/2015(L - KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION DAVANAGERE DIVISION DAVANAGERE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
B.K. RAMESH S/O. K. UMAPATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O H BASAPUR – 577 002 TALUK AND DISTRICT OF DAVANAGERE. ... RESPONDENT (SRI. B.K. RAMESH – RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 09.09.2014 IN I.D.NO.98/2012 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, HUBLI (ANNEXURE-H) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R On 14.06.2019, following order was passed:
“None appears for the respondent. If there is no representation on the next date of hearing, petitioner would be heard.”
2. Today also none appears for the respondent.
3. Respondent-workmen while working as a Conductor in the bus bearing Registration No.F-232 during transit from Davanagere to Bommanahalli route, on 24.05.2006, at the place called Echagatta, where, nine passengers were travelling without tickets and on this issue, the petitioner initiated disciplinary proceedings under regulation on 16.06.2006, the respondent suffered penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of penalty and withholding of one increment, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court. Labour Court proceeded to pass award dated 09.09.2014 in favour of respondent. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a serious allegation relating to misappropriation of petitioner’s Corporation money by not issuing tickets to nine passengers during their transit from Davanagere to Bommanahalli route on 24.05.2006, whereby, investigation team found that the respondent-workman did not issue tickets for nine passengers. Thus, loss has been caused to a sum of Rs.6/- each. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent-workman has given three versions while defending alleged charge against show-cause notice in the domestic enquiry and before the Tribunal and the following versions were taken by respondent- workman:
“i) In his reply to the Articles of charges, he contended that the said 9 persons who were not issued with tickets boarded the bus on a wrong premise and that they were wood cutters.
ii) During the disciplinary enquiry the workman contended that the passengers were drunk, they caused delay in purchasing the tickets by paying the requisite fare.
iii) Before the Industrial Tribunal he contended that the ticketless passengers were attending funeral, they were in grief, they caused delay in purchasing the tickets.”
5. The Labour Court has framed the following issue:
“1. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the first party by the Respondent is fair and proper?
2. Whether Respondent management by passing an order vide No.Ka Ra Sa : Da Vi :
Shi Sha : 1736 : 06 : 4246 : 06-07 dated 19.02.2007 reducing one increment permanently and treating the period of suspension as not on duty is justified?
3. What order?”
6. Issue No.2 has been dealt in paragraph No.9 of the order dated 09.09.2014 reads as under:
“Issue No.2: The primary burden of justifying the punishment order is on the Second Party management. The first party has seriously attacked the order under challenge contending that it is in contravention of the principles of natural justice and that apart absolutely there is nothing to prove the alleged misconduct said to have been committed by the workman. Despite such a serious dispute the management except leading the oral evidence of the Reporter as M.W.1 has not tendered the documents afresh in evidence in accordance with the law of evidence. In view of the decision of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Yenkappa S/o Lakshmappa Versus Divisional Controller, NEKRTC, Gulbarga Division, GulbaraI reported in 2014-I-LLJ Karnataka page 555 in case the domestic enquiry is held as not fair and proper it clearly amounts to rejection of evidence placed by the corporation on the issue of fairness of domestic enquiry. That being so, unless the documents pertaining to this dispute are tendered afresh in evidence they cannot be looked into by the court. Here in the case wherein all the documents pertaining to the dispute were got marked as Exs.M.1 to M.13 at the time of hearing the preliminary issue No.1 as regards the fairness of domestic enquiry. Since that issue is held in the negative the entire documentary evidence of the management is rejected. As such virtually there is no document on record to substantiate the order of punishment. Hence, left with no option I answer the second issue in the negative.”
7. Whereas, the Labour Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced before it, particularly, in respect of cross-examination of the respondent-
workman. The cross-examination of the respondent- workman reads as under:
“It is true when the bus was checked Ichagatta village 9 passengers traveling from Bullapur were found ticketless. The witness says they were traveling to Ichagatta to attend funeral. It is false to suggest that I did not take up the contention that those passengers were traveling to attend funeral either in claim statement or reply to charge sheet. It is false to suggest now only in order to avoid the punishment and trying to raise such a defense. It is false to suggest that today I am making a false statement saying that penalty was collected by the checking Inspector forcibly under the threat filing a police complaint. It is false to suggest that the punishment order is justified”
8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Labour Court has not appreciated the contradictory statement made by the respondent-workman at three stages namely, against the charge on memo, in domestic enquiry and before the Labour Court. Thus, the Labour Court has erred in allowing reference I.D.No.98/2012. Accordingly, the award dated 09.09.2014 at Annexure-H is set aside. Writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-