IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.46488/2012 (L KSRTC) BETWEEN KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) AND C N BASAVARAJU AGE MAJOR C/O GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC AND BMTC SAMYUKTHA KARMIKARA SANGHA, NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560054.
(BY SRI L SHEKAR, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DT.20.4.11 IN ID.NO.2/10 BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANN-G ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ‘ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition is listed for consideration of I.A. 1/2019 and on the request of the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for disposal as the petition could be disposed off on a short point.
2. The Petitioner is a transport Corporation and is before this Court being aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal rendered in I.D. 2/2010.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent is employed as a driver in the establishment of the Corporation and on 09.04.2008 when the respondent driver was on duty and plying the bus on the Bijapur- Bangalore route at about 12:45 a.m. when the vehicle reached Kodikoppa inter-section, an accident occurred on account of the motor cycle rider coming from the side roads and ramming into the bus resulting in the motorcycle rider being dragged over a distance of 30 feet from the spot of the accident and resulting in the instantaneous death of the motorcycle rider. That the body of the deceased was sent to the Government hospital and post mortem was conducted and the doctor conducting the post mortem has recorded that the body was smelling of alcohol and sample could not be collected in view of the fact that the blood had clotted.
4. The said fact is accepted by Enquiry Officer who in fact virtually absolves the respondent from any wrong doing, and lays the blames for the accident at the door of the deceased but thereafter proceeds to impose the punishment on a aquaint reasoning.
5. It is reasoned that the respondent being the driver of a bus ought to have been looking at the cross roads in any intersections for any approaching Vehicle and the mere fact of dragging the body over 30 feet demonstrates that the respondent was driving the vehicle at high speed and in a rash manner. The fact remains that the enquiry authority has proceeded on an assumption that is contrary to basic rules of traffic wherein the vehicles approaching the highway are required to be cautious in their approach to the high way. The reasoning of the Enquiry Officer is vice-versa.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the bus was traveling on a highway and that being the admitted position and if the fact of the motorcycle rider having consumed alcohol is undisputed, then the findings of the Enquiry Officer are illogical, perverse and unsustainable. If the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer is accepted the driver would be required to look into the roads on either side of the highway and not ahead which no prudent driver would do. The drivers approaching the highway from the cross road or intersections are required to be guarded. Further the other undisputed fact is that the respondent was acquitted of the allegations after trial by the court of the JMFC in C.C. No.233/2008.
7. In the totality of the circumstances this court does not find any good ground that warrants interference in the award of the Industrial Tribunal passed in I.D. 2/2010.
Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A. 1/2019 for early hearing does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed off.
Chs* CT-HR Sd/- JUDGE