IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2019 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI. K.R. THIMMEGOWDA, S/O. SRI. RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT: NO.21/2, 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHOWDAPPA LAYOUT, BAPUJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 026. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. N. SRIRAM REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027. ... RESPONDENT ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.04.2018 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.18382/2008 [L-KSRTC] ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, MOHAMMAD NAWAZ J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT In this appeal, the appellant has sought setting aside of the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the learned single judge in W.P. No.18382/2008 and the Award dated 20.03.2009 passed by the I Addl. Labour Court in I.D.No.119/2006 (Old No.16/2004).
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
3. The appellant was working as a driver with the respondent/Corporation. On 06.09.2001, he was driving a bus bearing registration No.KA-01-M-6892 on a route between Bangalore to Mysore. While he was returning to Bangalore from Mysore, the said bus collided with a oncoming Maxi cab, resulting in the death of two persons and several others sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. An enquiry was commenced and a report was submitted to the respondent/Corporation and based on the said report, the appellant herein was dismissed from service by an order dated 03.12.2003.
4. The appellant raised a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the Act’ for short) as amended for the state of Karnataka before the I Addl. Labour Court at Bangalore, interalia contending that the enquiry was not conducted properly and that the accident was on account of mechanical defect which developed in the Maxi Cab as the axles of the Maxi Cab got separated, due to which the driver of the Maxi Cab lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the bus.
5. The respondent filed objections denying the averments made by the appellant and justified the action taken against the appellant herein. It was also contended that as per the report of the station supervisor of the respondent-Corporation, the breaking of the sub axle of the maxi cab was due to collision of the bus with maxi cab.
6. The Labour Court by an Award dated 20.03.2009, dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 10(4-A) of the Act holding that the appellant is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the said petition.
7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant herein preferred the writ petition and the learned single judge, by holding that, the appellant herein has utterly failed to disprove the charges leveled against him and further holding that there is no perversity in the findings of the Labour Court and the orders passed by the respondent- Disciplinary Authority to interfere in the matter, dismissed the writ petition.
8. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that there is no basis to conclude that the accident was on account of the rash or negligent driving by the appellant. The accident occurred due to the reason that the axle of the opposite vehicle got cut and both the front wheels were separated and the Maxi cab which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus. It is further contended that the only forum to decide the issue of rash or negligent act is the Criminal Court. However, the appellant has been acquitted by the learned JMFC, Maddur holding that there is no rash or negligent driving on his part. It is his submission that the accident was on account of the mechanical defect in the Maxi cab and that the IMV Report – Ex.P12 would demonstrate the same. Hence, the learned counsel seeks a prayer to set aside the impugned order.
9. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the KSRTC Bus bearing registration No.KA-01- F-6892 on 06.09.2001 and he was operating on route between Bangalore to Mysore and while he was returning to Bangalore from Mysore, the said bus collided with a maxi cab, which was coming from the opposite direction, as a result, two persons died, 10 persons sustained grievous injuries and 6 persons sustained simple injuries. It is observed by the Labour Court that the appellant was issued with article of charges to which there was no reply submitted. The enquiry was concluded wherein it was held that the charges were proved and punishment of dismissal was imposed. Ex.M3 is a Rough sketch of the place of accident shows that KSRTC bus was moving exactly on the centre of the road. As observed, the original MVI Report has not been produced to appreciate the contention of the appellant that the accident was on account of either mechanical defect in Maxi cab or that the front two wheels along with axle came out of the vehicle prior to the head on collusion. The Labour Court has rightly observed that in the absence of the said report, it cannot come to the conclusion that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the bus so as to exonerate him. The acquittal of the appellant in the criminal case is not a ground to hold that the disciplinary action taken against him is illegal as it is well settled that the standard of proof required in domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities and not the proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases. Considering the above aspects, the learned single judge has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour Court. We find no error in the orders impugned.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Snc Sd/- JUDGE