IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.L. NARAYANA SWAMY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO.12534/2015 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI.S.K.DHANANJAYA S/O KARIBASAVEGOWDA, AGE 41 YEARS, DRIVER, BADGE NO.7707, K.S.R.T.C., HASSAN 1ST DEPOT, HASSAN – 575 201 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.SHEKAR.L.ADV.) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER K.S.R.T.C.
HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN – 575 201 … RESPONDENT (BY SMT.SHWETHA ANAND, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED AWARD DATD:6.2.2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, MYSORE IN REF.NO.53/2012, VIDE ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE REFERENCE AS PRAYED FOR, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 04.10.2018, 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 dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore dismissing the reference made by the petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as driver on the establishment of Respondent Corporation. On an allegation causing accident and injuries to 11 persons, the respondent imposed punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effect after holding an enquiry. At the instance of petitioner Union, the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore and registered as Ref. No. 53/2012. The Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 21.8.2013 held the enquiry conducted by the respondent Management was not fair and proper. Thereafter the respondent management not examined the reporting Officer who submitted report and conducted spot inspection. On the contrary the Management examined the custodian of the documents. The Petitioner workman led evidence on merits. The learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Mysore after hearing the matter on merits, rejected the reference.
3. The learned counsel submitted that, the Criminal case instituted against the Petitioner by the jurisdictional Police before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC, Hassan ended in acquittal. Relying on paragraphs 16 to 19 in the judgment and order of acquittal, the learned counsel submitted that rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner is not proved. The Industrial Tribunal failed to consider the materials on record in proper perspective and the judgment and award under challenge are liable to be set aside and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted in his evidence that he is responsible for the accident and therefore nothing more was required and the Industrial Tribunal rightly appreciated the said aspect and dismissed the reference. No ground is made out for interference and thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On the basis of the above rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether the judgment and award passed by the Industrial Tribunal suffers from any error and illegality so as to call for interference from this Court? My answer would be in the negative for the following reasons:
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is acquitted in criminal case and therefore it has to be held that there is no negligence or rash driving on the part of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The standard of proof in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt and not so in departmental enquiry, where preponderance of probability is the criteria. The bus and tanker sustained damage in the accident and 11 passengers of the bus suffered injuries. In Ex.M2 the petitioner claimed brake failure and in Ex.M12 he has contended that as the tanker driver lost control over the tanker, it dashed to the bus and that as such, the tanker driver is responsible for the accident. But the petitioner failed to take such a contention in the claim statement and in his evidence. He has stated in his cross-examination that he stopped the bus behind road hump even before reaching the bypass road and that the said spot where he stopped the bus is at a distance of 5 feet from edge of the road. He stated that two lorries including the tanker came in a competition to overtake the other and that in that attempt, rear portion of the tanker touched the left front portion of the bus. Such a contention he has omitted to take in his either Ex.M2, report or Ex.M12, written statement of defence or in his claim statement. Ex.M8 shows the scene of occurrence that the bus dashed to the tanker while it was crossing the bypass road. The circumstances showed that without observing the vehicles moving on the bypass road, the petitioner drove the bus to cross the bypass road, which resulted in the accident. Further, in Para-2 of the examination-in-chief, the petitioner has admitted that he is responsible for that accident. Thus it is clear that preponderance of probability is in favour of the respondent to believe that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the petitioner, the bus dashed to the tanker and he is responsible for the accident.
7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned judgment and award, calling for interference by this Court. The writ petition fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
akd Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE