IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.4986/2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI.P.R.KALEGOWDA S/O SRI.RANGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION - DRIVER K.S.R.T.C., BADGE NO.2026 K S R T C HASSAN DEPT AND DIVISION, HASSAN ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUNDARESH H C, ADV.) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K S R T C HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN – 573201 ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT : H R RENUKA, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE, DT.7.12.2011 IN REF. NO.128/2005 AS PER ANNX-A AND RESTORE THE WITHHOLDING INCREMENTS OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 20.09.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is filed by the workman being aggrieved of the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore dated 7.12.2011 in Ref. No.128/2005 dismissing the reference.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The Respondent Management issued charge sheet against the petitioner alleging misconduct of rash and negligence in driving the bus in question. Petitioner filed a detailed reply denying the charge leveled against him. Thereafter the management conducted enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report, the management has imposed a punishment of withholding two annual increments of the petitioner permanently. The industrial tribunal, on the preliminary issue held that, domestic enquiry conducted by the management was not fair and proper. The management has examined two witnesses as MW-1 & 2 and got marked Ex.M1 to M21. The petitioner was examined as WW-1. The Tribunal by its order dated: 7.12.2011, rejected the reference.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a hump was erected in the road. The petitioner while negotiating the same, applied brake to slow down the bus and the woman thinking that the vehicle was stopped, tried to alight the bus and suffered the accident thereby there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further the witness examined on behalf of the Management was not the eye witness to the accident. The conductor did not give stop signal and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to stop the bus. Admittedly, the door of the vehicle was tied and it was not usable to close and open the door. No action is taken against the conductor for repair of the door and not being in use, which might be the reason for lady to fall down and suffer casualty. In the circumstances, the view entertained by the Tribunal that the petitioner was negligent in driving the vehicle was unsustainable and thus prays for allowing the writ petition.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supports the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is, whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any error or illegality so as to call for interference by this Court? My finding is in the affirmative for the following reasons.
6. In the instant case the accident is not in dispute. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was a road hump and in order to negotiate the same, he applied brake in order to slow down the bus and the lady thinking that the bus was stopped, tried to alight the bus and fell down from the bus. Admittedly, the door was open and it was not used because it was under repair. It was the duty of the conductor to take proper action to close the door the moment the bus starts moving and open it only when the bus stops. No action is taken against the conductor of the bus. It is true that the statement of the petitioner in Ex.M2 and reply Ex.M9 are not consistent. But it is a fact if the door was closed, the said accident would not have taken. It was also the duty of the respondent Corporation to take immediate action if door of the bus was not functioning. No reasons are assigned as to why the door was not repaired and how it was allowed to ply on the public road. The accident place was not the bus-stop so as to attribute negligence on the part of petitioner that he moved the vehicle without observing whether the passenger has safely alighted. In the instant case, there was no occasion for the petitioner to take that extra care and caution until the passengers got down from the bus and only thereafter to start the bus. In my view, the accident was solely due to not maintaining the bus door properly and not closing the same and there is no material to show that petitioner was alone responsible for the accident and lady to die on the spot. The petitioner could stop the bus only when he heard sound of crying. Therefore, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the materials on record and the view entertained by the Tribunal that petitioner was responsible for the accident is not sustainable.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are hereby set aside. The punishment imposed on the petitioner is hereby quashed.
akd Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE