IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 3455 OF 2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD, TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION K.H.ROAD, BEGNALURU-560027. BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) AND:
G.R.JNANESHWARA RAO SANYASI S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REPT. BY HIS LRS ... PETITIONER A. SUMATHI BAI W/O. G.R.JNANESHWARA RAO SANYASI ADULT B. S.G.HEMANTHKUMAR S/O. G.R.JNANESHWARA RAO SANYASI ADULT C. S.G.PALLAVI D/O. G.R.JNANESHWARA RAO SANYASI R/O. NO.22, I MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, 3RD CROSS, NEAR BALAMURI GANESHA TEMPLE, AYAPPA NAGAR, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036.
( AMENDED CAUSE TITLE VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 03.09.2019) (BY SRI. PREMNATH N.T., ADVOCATER1(A-C)) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE/S 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 25.04.2014 IN I.D.NO.137/2010 PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner management of the KSRTC is before this Court grieving against the judgment & award dated 25.04.2014, a copy whereof is at Annexure-H, whereby, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in ID No.137/2010 having exercised the discretion under Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, has ordered as under:
“ The claim petition filed by the first party under Section 10(1) (D) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 R/w sec. Karnataka Amendment Act of 1988, against the II party is hereby partly allowed.
The impugned punishment order dated 25-10- 2003 is modified to the effect that withholding of ensuring one increment for one year only without cumulatiave effect and the other part of the punishment i.e. recovery of damages needs no intereference. ”
2. After service of notice, the respondent-workman having entered appearance through his counsel, resists the writ petition contending that the labour Court has abundant discretion vested in it under Section 11A of the Act, and such discretion having been exercised in accordance with rules of reason & justice, there is no warrant for indulgence of the Writ Court.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment & award are liable to be set aside on the following reasons:
(a) as rightly contended by the learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioner-Management, the Labour Court having find the domestic enquiry just & reasonable could not have exercised the discretion under Section 11A of the Act when the penalty of withholding the increment of wages/pay is only a minor penalty under Regulation 18 of the KSRTC Conduct & Disciplinary Regulation, 1971 as amended up to 19/11/2014;
(b) the other infection of the impugned award is as to the enormity of delay of seven years; a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of THE MANAGEMENT OF KSRTC vs SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH, W.P.No.28610/2011 (L-KSRTC) vide judgment dated 01.12.2011 has recognized delay in seeking the reference of the dispute as a ground for denying the relief to the workman by the Labour Court; even otherwise, justice of the case warrants that no relief ought to have been granted to the respondent-workman by the Labour Court in the fact matrix of the case; and, (c) the contention of the respondent – workman that the reference was not put in challenge by the Management and therefore, the delay pales into insignificance appears to be too farfetched an argument and therefore, cannot be countenanced.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; impugned award is quashed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE DS