Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs D Shankar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5573 Kant

                        -1-



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                     PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                        AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

       WRIT APPEAL NO.1180 OF 2021 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
BENGALURU CENTRAL DIVISION,
K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                                     ... APPELLANT

(BY SMT H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

D SHANKAR
S/O DODDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.25/79, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560010
                                    ... RESPONDENT

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
PASSED IN WP NO.40605/2017 DATED 01.04.2021 & ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                               -2-



                         JUDGMENT

Heard.

2. This writ appeal has been filed challenging the

order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.40605/2017 (L-KSRTC).

3. The facts of the case in brief are:

The respondent-workman was working as a driver

with the appellant-Corporation. On 04.06.2012, the

workman was driving the bus bearing registration

No.KA.40 F-375 from Chikkamagalur to Bengaluru route.

The alleged allegation is that the workman drove the bus in

rash and negligent manner and hit the rear portion of lorry

bearing registration No.KA 50 1225. Further, he hit against

another lorry bearing registration No.KA-46-1365 at about

3.30 a.m. on 04.06.2012. Due to the accident, all the three

vehicles were damaged and four passengers were injured

so also the driver and the conductor of the bus who were

on duty. Pursuant to the alleged accident, the respondent-

workman was subjected to Disciplinary Proceedings and he

was charge sheeted on 29.01.2013 and it was concluded in

imposing penalty of dismissal from the service on

28.05.2014.

4. The Industrial Dispute was raised by the

workman which was numbered as Reference No.33/2015.

The Labour Court held that Domestic Enquiry is fair and

proper. The award was passed modifying the penalty of

dismissal to that of reduction of two yearly increments and

deduction of one month salary as punishment and further,

the respondent-workman was not entitled for any back

wages and it was also held that he was entitled to the

continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

The award of the Labour Court was challenged before the

learned Single Judge by the appellant-Corporation. It was

contended that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate

the evidence on record that there is a negligence on the

part of the workman as he had hit the rear portion of the

lorry during the wee hours. Learned Single Judge did not

find any infirmity in the view taken by the Labour Court and

dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant-

Corporation could not make out a case to warrant for

imposition of penalty of dismissal from the service with

reference to the alleged charge levelled against the

respondent-workman.

5. On enquiry, learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the respondent-workman is working with the

Corporation since 2017 in compliance of the interim order

granted by the writ Court.

6. We have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

record.

7. The Labour Court has held that the punishment

awarded to the respondent-workman does not

commensurate with the gravity of charge, as such, reduced

the punishment of dismissal to reduction of two yearly

increments and deduction of one month salary as

punishment. It was also provided that the respondent-

workman would not be entitled for back wages. The writ

Court upheld the decision of the Labour Court and

dismissed the writ petition.

8. We are of the considered view that the view

taken by the learned Single Judge confirming the award of

the Labour Court does not call for interference.

9. The writ appeal being devoid of merit is

dismissed at the admission stage.

10. The pending interlocutory applications stand

disposed of.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM