IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 48363 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 35249 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) IN W.P. NO. 48363/2018: BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, NOW REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER, KSRTC, K H ROAD, BANGALORE 560027.
(BY SMT. RENUKA H R, ADVOCATE) AND:
P K AKKAMAHADEVI, D/O. P V RAJASHEKARAPPA, ADULT, NO. 181, 12TH BLOCK, KSRTC QUARTERS, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE 560027. THE RESPONDENT HAS VACATED THE QUARTERS SHE IS AT PRESENT R./AT NO. 338, 6TH MAIN ROAD, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, OPP TO BBMP HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHINNAYYA PALYA, BANGALORE 560030.
(BY SRI. M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2017 IN REF NO.67/2015 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-P) AND ETC., IN W.P. NO. 35249/2019:
BETWEEN:
SMT. P.K. AKKAMAHADEVI D/O P.V. RAJASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.7,3RD CROSS, SHAMANNA GARDEN, ADUGODI POST, BANGALORE 560 030.
(BY SRI. M P SRIKANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CENTRAL DIVISION, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFICER, K.S.R.T.C., K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE 560 027.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE OBSERVATION OF THE LABOUR COURT IN PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE AWARD DATED 17.02.2018 PASSED ON REFERENCE NO.67/2015 VIDE ANNX-‘M’ IN SO FAR AS TREATING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER AS A TRAINEE JUNIOR ASSISTANT CUM TYPIST.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner – KSRTC being a statutory corporation is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 27.09.2017 in Ref. No. 67/2015 passed by the learned III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, vide Annexure-B, whereby, the domestic enquiry pursuant to which she was removed from service has been held to have been conducted not fairly & properly.
2. Petitioner has also laid a challenge to the judgment & award dated 17.02.2018, made by the said Court vide Annexure-S whereby, the respondent-workman is directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits however restricting the back wages to 50%; continuation of official quarters facility is also ordered.
3. The respondent – workman too has filed the W.P.No.35249/2019 laying the challenge to paragraph 28 of the same judgment & award dated 17.02.2018, a copy whereof is at Annexure-M to this writ petition seeking the modification thereof to the effect that she has been regular appointee to the post of Junior Assistant cum Typist and therefore, on that basis, the service benefits such as salary, seniority & promotion should be extended.
4. In the KSRTC matter, the respondent – workman having entered Caveat through her counsel resist the writ petition; similarly, in workman’s writ petition, the KSRTC having entered appearance after service, registers its Objection.
5. Both the matters have taken up for final disposal with the consent of the Bar, together, since common questions of law and facts are involved.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of a considered opinion that a short relief needs to be granted to the KSRTC, as under, because:
(a) the Labour Court vide order dated 27.09.2017, had found fault with the domestic enquiry as having been conducted not fairly & properly; this finding has been recorded after weighing the oral evidence of Management Witness, Shri Jayaprakash and the Workman Witness, namely the delinquent; the Labour Court has considered as many as 36 documents produced and got marked from the side of the Management; there is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, this order cannot be found fault with; after all, the focal point for consideration for the Writ Court is the decision making process and not the decision itself;
(b) workman’s father one Mr. P V Rajashekarappa who was working as driver in the KSRTC having died in harness, petitioner being the legal heir came to be employed on compassionate ground as Junior Assistant/Typist (Trainee) on 25.09.2004; in fact, such an appointment was made with a long delay of eight years after the death of the breadwinner is a matter for deprecation, inasmuch as, the claim for such appointments ought to have been considered post haste; on the basis of a representation by one Smt. Bhagyamma, petitioner was removed from service on the ground that she had suppressed in her claim for compassionate appointment that her brother Shri P R Paramashivappa was employed as driver in BMTC; the Management Witness MW1 namely, Mr. M L Jayakeerthi in his cross- examination dated 26.10.2017 has specifically admitted at paragraph 11 of the deposition that “one Shri N Vishwanath, a Security Inspector after enquiry has submitted the report which did not assert that Shri P R Paramashivappa is the brother of the workman; at paragraph 9 of the deposition, he has admitted that the document in Ex. M6 which the Management banked upon to prove its charge shows the said P R Paramashivappa as son of Shri Rajashekar; that being so, there was absolutely no case made out for the removal of the workman from service on the allegation of suppression of fact, as rightly held by the Labour Court;
(c) the Labour Court has made reasonable discussion as to some important original documents having not been produced in the trial as admitted by the Management Witness himself; the truncated documents could not have been pressed into service by the Management to prove the charge; this apart, some important papers relating to record of statement of witnesses are also admitted to have been not marked in the evidence; no explanation is offered for not producing the originals of Ex. M4 to Ex. M 22; the witness has admitted that his report at Ex. M37 was produced and marked before the Court for the first time; again no explanation is offered why that was not part of the domestic enquiry; very importantly, the Management Witness at paragraph 9 has specifically admitted the complaint filed by Smt. Bhagyamma at Ex.M4 & M17, she has not whispered as to Shri P R Paramashivappa being the brother of the workman and that, the said Paramashivappa in his Statement at Ex. P18 he has stated that the workman is not his sister;
(d) as already stated above, the Writ Court does not sit in appeal over the exercise undertaken by the Labour Court which has the benefit of accumulated wisdom at its deployment; the Management has failed to show that the impugned award is infected with any legal or factual infirmity; on the reading of the deposition of witnesses, it is possible to come to a different conclusion is not a ground even for appeal, let alone in writ petition; this Court cannot be called upon to weigh the evidence afresh and on that basis to arrive at findings in variance with that of the Labour Court; and, (e) there is force in the submission of the learned Sr.
Panel Counsel for the KSRTC that the workman herself having given a letter to the Management for waving her claim for back wages, the direction for payment of 50% of the back wages needs to be set at naught; the learned counsel for the workman fairly agreed with this course so that the lis can be given a decent burial here itself; the learned counsel also submitted the workman be granted liberty to make a representation to the Management seeking redressal of offshoot grievance of the workman in terms of the prayer in her writ petition; this appears to be fair & reasonable.
In the above circumstances, the KSRTC’s W.P No.48363/2018 succeeds in part, although the challenge to the impugned order & award is negatived, the direction to pay the back wages at the rate of 50% is set at naught, retaining the rest.
It is open to the petitioner – workman to make appropriate representation seeking redressal of her grievance ventilated in W.P.No. 35249/2019, which is hereby disposed off with a direction to consider such a representation expeditiously and in accordance with law, all contentions of the parties having been kept open.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Bsv