Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs C M Nagaraju
2021 Latest Caselaw 585 Kant

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA

                         AND

          THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

        WRIT APPEAL NO.64 /2020 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION,
CHIKMAGALUR
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICE
K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027
                                            ...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)


AND

C.M. NAGARAJU
S/O. LATE MOODALAGIRIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/O. NO.1:194, KANTHEHALLI AND POST
ARSIKERE TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI J.R. THIPPESWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M.C. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DATED 24.9.2019 IN WP NO.61057/2014 AND
                               2


W.P.NO.23158/2015 BY GRANTING THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT CORPORATION.


     THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

The legality and correctness of order dated

24.9.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.61057/2014 filed by the appellant-Corporation

herein and Writ Petition No.23158/2015 filed by the

respondent, is assailed by the appellant-Corporation in this

appeal.

2. Though there is a delay of 84 days in filing the

appeal, nevertheless we have heard learned Counsel for

the appellant-Corporation and learned Counsel for the

respondent, at length.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the

respondent was appointed on 28.8.2001 as a driver cum

conductor in the appellant-Corporation (trainee driver).

He was driving the bus bearing registration No.KA-13-F-

440 on route Chikmagalur to Mudigere at about 9.30 a.m.

When the vehicle reached near Vasthare village, the driver

of the bus drove the same in such a manner resulting in

collision with another bus bearing registration No.KA-34-F-

389. As a result, about 51 passengers in the bus were

injured and both the vehicles were damaged.

Consequently, a show cause notice dated 21.12.2001 was

issued to the respondent alleging misconduct. The

respondent was subjected to disciplinary enquiry, as his

reply was not satisfactory. The enquiry officer submitted

that the charges against the respondent were proved and

by order dated 23.6.2005, he was removed from the list of

trainee drivers as a measure of punishment. Being

aggrieved, the respondent raised a dispute in IDR

No.11/2006. The Labour Court at Chikmagalur, considered

the case and rejected the reference by its order dated

24.11.2006.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ

Petition No.16261/2008 before this Court and the said writ

petition was disposed of by order dated 6.3.2009 and the

matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh

consideration. On remand, the Labour Court passed an

award on 28.8.2009 directing reinstatement of the

respondent with continuity of service and 25% of

backwages.

5. The appellant-Corporation being aggrieved by

the said award of the Labour Court dated 28.8.2009 filed

Writ Petition No.1679/2010 and the same was allowed by

order dated 7.6.2011 holding that the charges levelled

against the respondent had been established. However, in

the writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation, the

matter was remanded to consider the case under Section

11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act'). On remand, the Labour Court

passed an award on 19.8.2013 in IDR No.11/2006 by

which the Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal

dated 23.6.2005 passed by the appellant-Corporation and

awarded a lesser punishment of one increment being

deducted for a period of two years. It was further held

that the respondent was not entitled to any backwages.

The appellant-Corporation was further directed to reinstate

the respondent to his original post with continuity of

service but no consequential benefits were awarded by the

Labour Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation

as well as the respondent preferred their respective writ

petitions before this Court.

6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition filed by the appellant-Corporation and the

respondent was directed to be reinstated within two weeks

from the date of the said order. It was further held that

the respondent was not entitled to any backwages. The

learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition filed

by the respondent. However, the respondent was entitled

to continuity of service and consequential benefits. The

learned Single Judge further directed reinstatement of the

respondent with continuity of service and consequential

benefits. Further, in respect of the period which had

already passed, the respondent was extended the benefit

of Section 17-B wages and no monetary benefits were

awarded. Being aggrieved, the appellant-Corporation has

preferred this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the

appellant-Corporation and the learned Counsel for the

respondent and perused the material on record including

the impugned order.

8. The detailed narration of facts would not call for

reiteration. The grievance of the appellant-Corporation is

only with regard to the consequential benefits being

granted by the learned Single Judge, which was not

awarded by the Labour Court while dismissing

respondent's writ petition.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation

submitted that when the writ petition filed by the

respondent was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the

respondent was not entitled to any further relief than what

was awarded by the Labour Court. Be that as it may. The

appellant-Corporation is aggrieved by the order of

reinstatement of the respondent as well as the grant of

continuity of service as well as consequential benefits to

the respondent on his reinstatement.

10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent

sought to justify the order of the learned Single Judge by

contending that when the learned Single Judge had

directed reinstatement into service, continuity of service

and consequential benefits were automatic. Therefore,

there is no error in the order of the learned Single Judge.

11. By way of reply, learned Counsel for the

appellant-Corporation submitted that the Labour Court in

its wisdom did not grant any consequential benefits of

reinstatement. Only continuity of service was granted and

there was withholding of one increment for two years.

Therefore, on the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the

respondent, there should not have been any award of

consequential benefits by the learned Single Judge.

12. As a response to this submission, learned

Counsel for the respondent submitted that since no

backwages are being paid to the respondent, there would

be no arrears of pay that would be paid to the respondent

even if there is a refixation of salary for the period from

23.6.2005 till his reinstatement. As a result, he would not

be entitled to any leave encashment. If at all he is entitled

to any promotion, it would be in accordance with law.

Since no backwages have been awarded and the same has

been accepted by the respondent, the refixation of salary

on account of payment of increments, except by way of

punishment, as well as increase in any pay scale, would

only enure to the benefit of the respondent notionally and

would be considered only for the purpose of his

retrial/pensionary benefits. Learned Counsel for the

respondent submitted that having regard to the age of the

respondent, who is 55 years old, the respondent will be

satisfied, if he is reinstated with continuity of service and

as submitted by him above.

13. In the circumstances, we find that the order of

the learned Single Judge would call only for a minor

modification having regard to the aforesaid submissions

made by the learned Counsel for the respondent.

14. In the result, the award of the Labour Court is

affirmed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is

modified to the extent of holding that the respondent is

entitled to reinstatement and the said reinstatement shall

be made within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The

respondent is not entitled to any backwages and he is

entitled to continuity of service for the purpose of

retiral/pensionary benefits. He is entitled to only Section

17-B wages and no other monetary benefits, for the

purpose of the period passed. It is also clarified that

continuity of service is for the purpose of retiral/pensionary

benefits and not for the purpose of promotion and even

the increment is to be only notionally fixed to be

considered for the purpose of granting retiral benefits.

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

In view of the above, delay of 84 days in filing the

appeal is ignored.

In view of the disposal of the appeal, all the pending

applications stand disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-