The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed under Articles 226 And 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking certain reliefs. The Court observed that when the workman himself admitted that he had not made an entry in the waybill, the Tribunal could not have upset the findings lightly.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was a Conductor. He was on duty on 17.09.2004 in the bus plying on route Bengaluru to Bagepally. The bus came to be checked at Stage No.18 at Bellur Cross. It was found that he had failed to account for the sale of tickets in the waybill in that he had not entered the sale of 1 ticket of Rs.22.00/- denomination, 1 ticket of Rs.40.00/- denomination, and 14 tickets of Rs.5.00/- denomination and further it was alleged that he behaved arrogantly with the checking officials. He came under disciplinary inquiry for two acts of misconduct.
He was imposed with a penalty of withholding ensuing 3 annual increments with cumulative effect and a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) was directed to be recovered in 10 installments and the period of suspension was treated as not on duty. After a lapse of 3 years, the respondent raised an Industrial Dispute. The Tribunal chose to modify the penalty and the order of punishment dated 29.06.2006, and the same was set aside. Hence, the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per the Rules prevailing in the Corporation, the Conductor is required to issue tickets and enter the same in the waybill as against the sale of tickets before the bus reaches the staging point. She argued that the Tribunal, on an erroneous assumption, made out a case for the workman and concluded that the workman had time to take into account the sale of tickets till the end of the day while crediting the amount at the cash counter in the depot. The Counsel vehemently contended that the findings of the Tribunal are unsustainable in law.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent justified the award of the Tribunal and submitted that the Conductor was diligent in discharging his duties. He further contended that the Conductor was about to make an entry on the waybill, but at that time the checking officials suddenly entered the bus and checked and they falsely made allegations against him.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the award of the Industrial Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the Conductor was on duty on 17.09.2004 in the bus plying on route Bengaluru to Bagepally. It is also not in dispute that the workman had not made an entry in the waybill.
The Court observed that the conductor admitted the fact that he did not make an entry in the waybill. When the workman himself admitted the guilt, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to make out a case for the workman that he had time to take into account the sale of tickets till the end of the day while crediting the amount at the cash counter in the depot. The Tribunal made out an artificial case for the workman and it almost excused the guilt of misconduct. When the first charge was held to be proved, the Tribunal could not have modified the order of punishment. When the workman himself admitted that he did not make an entry in the waybill, the Tribunal could not have upset the findings lightly. The Tribunal should have seen that Section 11-A of the I.D Act could not have been pressed into service in respect of such misconduct.
The decision of the Court:
The Karnataka High Court, allowing the petition, held that the award dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru in Industrial Dispute is set-aside and the order of the punishment dated 29.06.2006 is confirmed.
Case Title: Karnataka State Road vs M. N. Venkataraghava
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Mulimani
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.770 OF 2013 (L-KSRTC)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. H. R. Renuka
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Shankarappa
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
