IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.1915 OF 2016 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN:
SRI T MANJUNATHA SON OF THIMMA BOVI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT BEHIND JAIN TEMPLE KADUR TOWN, KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALAUR DISTRICT.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI. H C SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER KSRTC, HASSAN DIVISION HASSAN-573 201. ... RESPONDENT (BY SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.28070/2010 DATED 30/07/2013.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT There is a delay of 1042 days in filing the appeal. However, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed arguments on merits.
2. We have heard learned counsels.
3. The plea of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge committed an error in not considering the case of the appellant and confirming the order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the Labour Court in I.D.A. No.69 of 2003. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court are perverse and that the punishment of discharge imposed on the appellant is disproportionate.
4. The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. She contends that the appellant was absent before the Labour Court. It is submitted that as noticed by the Labour Court the appellant did not turn up or lead any evidence.
5. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge noted that the appellant continued to make repeated submission, only with regard to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The same was considered in view of the various judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel. It was also noted that the appellant did not point out or demonstrate as to the finding of the Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court are perverse. Even insofar as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that no relief could be granted to the appellant, that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in non- issuance of tickets to ten passengers. Respondent’s counsel submits that there were 23 previous cases against the appellant. In view of the same, we do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference. Hence, issuance of notice on delay would be futile. Consequently the appeal is dismissed on merits as well as on delay.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms