IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 26694 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
P. MUTTAPPA S/O. PUJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, SONNAPPANAHALLI, BETTAHALASUR POST, DEVANAHALLI TALLUK, BANGALORE NORTH DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHEKAR L, ADV.) AND THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C., BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION, K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027.
... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DTD: 5.3.2014 PASSED IN I.D.NO.5/2013 BYTHE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT-CORPORATION TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH BACK WAGES, CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICE FROM THE DATE OF DISMISSAL TILL THE DATE OF REINSTATEMENT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. P. Muttappa, the petitioner, has challenged the legality of the award dated 05-03-2014 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, whereby the learned Labour Court has rejected the dispute raised by the petitioner and has upheld the dismissal order dated 21-01-2013 passed by the respondent, the Divisional Controller, KSRTC.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in 1986, the petitioner was appointed as a driver with the respondent-Corporation. On 21-10-2011, while he was driving a bus, bearing Reg. No. KA-01-F-8297, between Bangalore and Ernakulam, around 3.30 a.m., near Perumdorai Village bypass, the bus driven by the petitioner hit a lorry. Due to the accident, the conductor of the bus subsequently expired, and the petitioner also sustained injuries. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his explanation. However, after holding a due enquiry, by order dated 24-01-2013, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the dismissal order, he raised a labour dispute. However, by the impugned award, dated 05-03-2014, the dispute raised by the petitioner has been dismissed and, as stated above, the dismissal order dated 21-01-2013, has been upheld by the learned Labour Court. Hence this petition before this Court.
3. Mr. Shekar L., the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. For, this is the first time that the petitioner has caused an accident, and yet he has been dismissed from the service. According to the learned counsel, this aspect has been overlooked by the learned Labour Court. Therefore, the award deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned award.
5. The position being taken by the learned counsel is clearly unjustified. For, according to the impugned award, the history sheet of the petitioner clearly reveals that even on four other occasions, the petitioner had caused accidents. For these four accidents, the petitioner was charge sheeted by the respondent-Corporation, and subsequently, minor punishments were imposed upon him. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel that this is the first and only accident caused by the petitioner, is belied by the history sheet (Ex.M.20 produced before the Labour Court). The learned Labour Court has clearly noticed the fact that the petitioner was involved in five accidents, out of which, the present accident was a fatal one. Since the driver of a bus is responsible for the lives of many, therefore an onerous responsibility lies on the shoulder of such a driver. However, the petitioner has already caused five accidents, out of which, one has turned out to be fatal one. Therefore the KSRTC was justified in dismissing the petitioner. Hence the punishment imposed upon him is not shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel is clearly unacceptable.
6. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition; it is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Judge Rd/-