Bangalore Metropolitan vs B Mahadeva
2021 Latest Caselaw 1130 Kant

                                1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                             PRESENT

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                              AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

        WRIT APPEAL NO.1639/2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027
BY ITS CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER,
REP BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H.ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.

                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. H.R.RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

B. MAHADEVA
S/O. D. BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
D.NO. 2767, 14TH MAIN,
8TH 'F' CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE,
BANGALORE-560040.
                                          ... RESPONDENT

(RESPONDENT SERVED)

    THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL
                                  2




AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
DATED 10.04.2018 IN WP NO.18808/2009 AND ETC.

    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH
CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

The present writ appeal is arising out of order passed by

learned Single Judge dated 10.04.2018 in W.P. No.18808 of 2009.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the respondent before

this Court was employed with Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport

Corporation as a driver in the year 1997 and worked without any

blemish. The record further reveals that based upon an accident

which took place in the year 2001, a departmental enquiry was

conducted and he was dismissed from service. The respondent

employee unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal before

the First Additional Labour Court, Bangalore, in I.D. No.58 of 2006

and the Labour Court has passed an award on 06.05.2009 declining

to grant relief to the employee. A writ petition was preferred

challenging award dated 06.05.2009 and the learned Single Judge

has allowed the writ petition. The undisputed facts reveal that the

Labour Court has declined to grant relief only on the ground by

assuming that the employee was having a history of accidents. The

employee never stated in his statement that he is having history of

accidents. However, he only stated that he had committed an

accident. Paragraphs No.4, 5 and 6 of the order by the learned

Single Judge reads as under -

"4. I have examined the ground. Perused the LCR, M-14 and also WW-1 to WW-5. The petitioner herein has admitted in the course of examination that he had committed an accident and that it has been misread by the Labour Court that he had a history of accidents and Labour Court has also considered the exhibit M-14 in support of its order which is an error on the face of it. Exhibit M-14 - enquiry report, based on which the enquiry was initiated against him and dismissed him from services, which is the subject matter.

5. In the circumstances it is to be held that Labour Court has committed an error by dismissing the petitioner herein from the services only on the basis of evidence of WW-1 and Exhibit M-14. Hence the order passed by the Labour Court is to be set aside. For one time accident such an extreme punishment could not have been imposed.

6. In the circumstances it is directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into services and to be paid current wages. Petitioner is entitled to count the dismissal period for the terminal benefits. Time for compliance is four weeks, within which petitioner has to approach the respondent for reporting to duty. In case of failure on the part of petitioner, this order shall not enure to the benefit of petitioner."

3. After fully going through the entire record and the

findings of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge, we are of the

opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside

the dismissal as it was based only on the evidence of W.W.1 and

Ex.M-14. The finding arrived at by the Labour Court was erroneous

finding and in those circumstances the learned Single Judge was

justified in allowing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has

also not granted backwages to the employee in question and has

only observed that he shall be reinstated back in service and be

paid current wages. Paragraph 6 of the order makes it very clear

that there is no order for granting backwages. Payment of current

wages means the salary of the employee has to be notionally fixed

and has to be paid current wages from the date of reinstatement.

He shall be entitled for all consequential benefits except backwages.

In the light of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to entertain

this present writ appeal The same is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm