IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1654 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
M.C.GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS REPRESENTED BY KARNAKATA RASTHE SARIGE MAZDOOR SANGHA OKKUTA (R) NO.16, SUBEDHAR CHATRAM ROAD HOTEL RAJAPRAKASH, UPSTAIRS BENGALURU-560 009.
(BY SRI: M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION K. H. ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR BENGALURU-560 027 REPRESENTED BY CHIEF LAW OFFICER KSRTC, BENGALURU-560 027.
(BY SMT:H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE) ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.58377 OF 2013 DATED 23.04.2014 AND ETC., ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant was working as a Driver with the respondent-Corporation. While he was driving the bus on 30.07.2005, within the limits of Bengaluru and Mysuru, it met with an accident at about 2.45 p.m. in front of Mudigere Government Hospital at Channapatna Taluk. A complaint was filed by the appellant against the driver of the lorry on the ground that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him. He denied the charges. An enquiry was ordered. He participated in the same. The charges were held proved. A second show cause notice was issued. He was imposed with a punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect and recovery of one months salary in 10 monthly installments. Questioning the same, a reference was made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Tribunal. By the order dated 18.04.2013, the reference was allowed. The order of punishment was set aside. It was held that the workman is entitled to all consequential monetary benefits. Questioning the same, the Management filed Writ Petition No.58377 of 2013. By the impugned order dated 23.04.2014, the writ petition was allowed. The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was affirmed. Questioning the same, the present appeal is filed.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. That the material on record would indicate that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. That so far as the punishment is concerned, the same is too harsh.
3. The same is disputed by the respondent’s counsel.
4. The material on record would indicate that the petitioner dashed against the lorry which was ahead of him. It is the contention that the driver of the lorry had suddenly applied the brake and therefore, he had no other option. All these material were considered by the learned Single Judge who came to the view, that even if the case of the workmen is to be accepted, he is expected to maintain a reasonable distance between the two vehicles. The same is required in terms of Regulation 23. The same having not been done, it cannot be said that the driver of the lorry alone, is responsible for the accident. That even the FIR that was lodged against the driver of the lorry would not save the workman. The learned Single Judge also considered the contention of the respondent-
Corporation that a huge amount was spent for repair of the bus and that the bus was idle for quite some time.
5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation that this is not the first occasion in which the appellant has caused an accident. He was involved in 5 previous cases of accidents. He has been imposed with various punishments. Therefore, it would appear that he is in the habit of committing accidents. The past conduct of the appellant also disentitles for any equitable relief.
6. Under these circumstances, having considered the contentions, and the manner in which the accident has occurred as well as the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Even otherwise, on considering the punishment imposed on the appellant, what is awarded is a most minimal punishment and therefore, no further reduction requires to be made.
7. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-