IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR WRIT PETITION NO.28262/2015 (L-KSRTC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.61058/2014 (L-KSRTC) IN W.P.NO.28262/2015 BETWEEN SRI K.R. NAGESH S/O K.N. REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.0043, CHIKKABALLAPUR DEPOT, KSRTC CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, R/AT KEMPAPURA, PADMAGATTA POST, MULUBAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT.
(BY SRI K SRINIVASA, ADV.) AND DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562101.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, IN ID NO.52/2012, DTD.3.10.2013 VIDE ANNEX-O TO THE WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REINSTATE THE PETITIONER BACK INTO THE POST OF DRIVER HELD BY HIM WITH CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES.
IN W.P.NO.61058/2014 BETWEEN KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101 BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADV.) AND K R NAGESH SON OF K N REDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, BADGE NO.0043, CHIKKABALLAPURA DEPOT, KSRTC, CHIKKABALLAPURA, RESIDENT AT KEMPAPURA, PADMAGHATTA POST, MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K SRINIVASA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DTD.3.10.2013 IN ID NO.52/2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE (ANNEX-J).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.61058/2014.
2. In both the writ petitions, the award impugned is passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.52/2012. Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up for disposal by this common order.
3. The writ petition No.28262/2015 is preferred by the workman and writ petition No.61056/2014 is preferred by the KSRTC. Both the petitioner and the respondent were parties to the dispute adjudicated by the II Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru and the said Labour Court passed the award on 03.10.2013.
4. The learned counsel H.R.Renuka, for the petitioner-employer, submits that the dispute lies in a narrow compass and the writ petitions could be disposed of by permitting the petitioner-employer to dispose of the enquiry initiated by it on account of misconduct committed by the workman. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that the workman had caused an accident on account of his rash and negligent driving resulting in loss of human life and hence, the same has been construed as a misconduct and the enquiry has been proceeded against the workman. Learned counsel would further submit that the Labour Court has misread Annexure- F as the order of termination. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the same is not an order of termination but it is an order in the nature of suspension. Though the word suspension is not used, the same has to be read as an order of suspension only, Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.
5. If that be the petitioner’s own construction that is placed on the said document then, the award passed by the Labour Court warrants interference as the same has been construed as an order removing the workman from service.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-employer that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the workman has already been reinstated into the service and that imputation of charge sheet has been issued and the reply has been submitted by the workman and the findings have also been rendered.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petitions be disposed of by setting aside the award and by permitting the employer- Corporation to continue with the enquiry.
Accordingly, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The award impugned is set aside. The setting aside of the award will not come in the way of the employer-Corporation continuing with the Disciplinary proceedings initiated by it vide D.E.No.01/2012.
It is seen that the misconduct alleged is one of causing of an accident on account of rash and negligent driving. If that be the case, the Disciplinary Authority shall also take into consideration the findings of the Criminal Court that may have been or will be rendered, while disposing of the criminal case registered by the Jurisdictional police.
The writ petitions stand disposed off on the above terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR