IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. L. NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.60759/2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MYSORE URBAN DIVISION, NEW SAYYAJIRAO BANNIMANTAP ROAD, MYSORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER. ... PETITIONER (BY SMT : RENUKA H R, ADV.) AND:
K.B.REVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS UNION POST OFFICE ROAD, MYSORE - 570 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.L SHEKAR, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA QUASH THE AWARD DTD.12.9.2013 IN REF.NO.161/2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE (ANNEX-E).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 14.09.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the Corporation feeling aggrieved of the award dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, at Mysore in Reference No.161/2010 allowing the same and restoring the withheld benefits in favour of the respondent. The petitioner had imposed punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect and to recover one month’s salary.
2. The facts of the case are that while the respondent was driving the bus belonging to the petitioner on 20.5.2005, at about 6.10 a.m. the bus dashed to the parked lorry. The lorry was parked due to repair. Article of charge was issued that the cleaner of the lorry sustained injuries and that he died on the spot, major damage was caused to the bus to the tune of Rs.1,26,792/- and that the respondent was responsible for that accident.
3. The defence of the respondent was that lorry was parked without signal or kept stone around it to show that the lorry was under repair. It was a snow falling time, there was no proper indication and also defect in the brake system, the bus slightly touched the lorry. There was no death or injury caused to any passenger. The respondent himself injured and took treatment.
4. The petitioner conducted domestic enquiry. The domestic enquiry was held to be not fair and proper by the Tribunal. On behalf of the petitioner, MW-1 and MW-2 were examined and Ex.M1 to M17 were marked. The respondent was examined as WW-1 and got marked Ex.W1 & W2 being certified copy of judgment in CC No.959/2007 and copy of award passed in Reference No.17/2002. Among the documents marked on behalf of the petitioner, Ex.M1 is accident report and Ex.M2 is accident first information report. Ex.P3 is report of the Assistant Traffic Manager. Ex.M5 is complaint of the lorry driver.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned award. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that tribunal took exception for not adducing the evidence of reporter of the accident. The said reporter had retired from service and his presence to tender evidence could not be secured. Neither the reporter nor the officer deposed before the Tribunal were eye witnesses. Hence the admissions made by the management witness could not have been acted upon. It is further submitted, the Tribunal ought to have applied the theory of Res Ipsa Loquitor while assessing the misconduct committed by the workman. The MACT, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh, it has been held that driver of the bus was responsible for the accident. The corporation had to deposit Rs.2,20,500 with interest at 7.5% p.a. The rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent is evident from the impact caused at the place of accident, the damage caused to the bus.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. The only question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is, whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is perverse, capricious and unreasonable calling for interference at the hands of this Court? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons.
8. It is seen from the records that on coming to know of the accident Assistant Traffic Manager went to the spot and submitted Accident First Information Report as per Ex.M2. He also made preliminary investigation and filed report as per Ex.M3. On the basis of that report, the Divisional Traffic Officer and the Unit Head of the petitioner prepared Accident Report Form in TR-18 as per Ex.M1 holding that respondent was responsible for the accident.
9. MW-2 deposed about the case of the petitioner. He has not stated as to how the respondent was rash or negligent in his driving. He admitted that lorry was parked on the road without any signal light or stones surrounding it. He has further admitted, the respondent made the light dim and dip, it did not work, the brake of the bus had failed and that as such, the said accident occurred.
10. In Ex.M2, the Assistant Traffic Manager reported about the accident, but it is not stated in the report that the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of the bus by the respondent. The Assistant Traffic Manager, Sri Venkatareddy reported as per Ex.M3 that accident was due to fault of the respondent and that if the respondent had driven the bus slowly, he could have stopped the bus seeing the parked lorry. It is not stated in EX.M3 the basis on which Sri Venkatareddy came to such a conclusion. In Ex.M1 the Divisional Mechanical Engineer has stated that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the Bus. On the face of admissions of MW-
2 and non examination of Assistant Traffic Managers and the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, though on the ground their non- availability, it cannot be said that the petitioner has proved its pleaded case before the Tribunal.
11. Though as a background history of respondent, it was alleged that he had caused accident on 12.12.1996 and he was punished, the said Tribunal itself had set aside the said punishment vide Ex.W2. Merely because a case was registered, it cannot be concluded that the respondent workman is a habitual offender.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that witnesses examined on behalf of the management were not the eye witnesses and admissions given by them cannot be accepted does not stand to any reason. Having examined the witnesses, the Corporation has to face the consequences and cannot put a bar on acceptance of their evidence in the absence of other materials placed on record.
13. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned award is not perverse, capricious or unreasonable calling for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
akd ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE