Sri. G. Hanumantaraddi S/O ... vs The Management Of Nekrtc
2022 Latest Caselaw 1552 Kant

                          :1:


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

  DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

      WRIT PETITION NO.60834/2011 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN

SRI. G. HANUMANTARADDI S/O MARYSWAMAPPA
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
A/P: KALEBAL, TQ. HOSPET,
DIST. BELLARY.
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S G KADADAKATTI, ADV.)

AND

THE MANAGEMENT OF NEKRTC,
BELLARY DIVISION,
REP BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
BELLARY.
                                          ....RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S BADAWADAGI, ADV.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-D AND
F; B. QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
HUBLI IN KID. NO.23/2005 ON ISSUE NO.1 DATED:30/08/2008
WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-D AND ALSO
QUASH     THE   AWARD    PASSED   IN   KID   NO.23/2005
DATED:01/04/2010 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-F; C. DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE
PETITIONER INTO SERVICE WITH FULL BACK WAGES,
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS.
                                :2:



     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

1 The petitioner has assailed the correctness of the

order dated 30.08.2008 passed by the Principal Labour Court,

Hubli in KID No.23/2005, by which it held that the enquiry

conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper. The

petitioner has also challenged the award dated 01.04.2010

passed by the Labour Court, Hubli in KID No.23/2005, by which

it rejected the dispute raised by the petitioner under Section

10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act,

1987 (for short, 'the Act, 1987').

2 The petitioner was appointed as a conductor with the

respondent in the year 1986. He was issued with a charge sheet

wherein it was alleged that on 28.01.1997 while he was on duty

between Kuditini to Yelaganchi, the bus was checked near the

Railway Gate. The Checking Squad found that the petitioner had

failed to issue tickets to the passengers even after collecting fare

and hence collected the fare and imposed penalty on the

ticketless passengers. They also recorded the statement of the

ticketless passengers and issued an offence memo to the

petitioner. Thereafter a detailed report was submitted to the

disciplinary authority who issued an articles of charge.

3 The petitioner denied the charges and contended that

the bus was checked between stages 4 and 5 while he was in the

process of issuing tickets. He claimed that the passengers

compelled him to move the bus from stage 5 as one of their

relatives had expired and that they had to attend the funeral.

The petitioner alleged that the Checking Officials recorded the

statement of the passengers behind his back and forced the

passengers to sign on the statement. The Disciplinary Authority

did not accept the reply and hence appointed an Enquiry Officer.

The Enquiry Officer after conducting proceedings held that the

charges were proved. Based on the above, the petitioner was

dismissed from service. Following this, the petitioner raised a

dispute before the Labour Court by filing a petition under Section

10(4-A) of the Act, 1987, which was contested by the

respondent. The Labour Court in terms of its order dated

30.08.2008 held that the enquiry was fair and proper. The

respondent produced documents which were marked as Exs.M1

to M20 by consent. The petitioner was examined as PW1.

4 Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the

Labour Court held that the petitioner admitted that while the bus

was being checked, there were 72 adult passengers. He also

admitted that he had not issued 22 tickets to the passengers and

in respect of 21 passengers, he had not issued tickets even after

collecting the fare. The two witnesses who were examined by the

petitioner stated that they had not obtained ticket and were

traveling ticketless. It noticed the penalty receipts collected from

the ticketless passengers and also recorded the statement. The

Labour Court therefore held that the petitioner failed to issue

tickets to 22 passengers even after collecting fare and also failed

to issue tickets to 20 passengers. The Labour Court noticed the

past history of the petitioner, which indicated that he was

involved in 29 cases prior to the incident in question. The Labour

Court therefore held that the dismissal of the petitioner was

justified and was not disproportionate to the proved charge.

5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Labour

Court, the present writ petition is filed.

6 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

Labour Court could not have relied upon the past history of the

petitioner to justify the dismissal, moreso when the previous

cases were not enquired into. He further stated that no evidence

was recorded before the Labour Court to establish the past

history and therefore the award of the Labour Court deserves to

be interfered with. He further contended that there were

innumerable passengers in the bus and the bus was checked

between stages and therefore the passengers could not be issued

the tickets.

7 Learned counsel for the respondent on the other

hand submitted that the passengers have recorded the

statement and have also paid fine. He submitted that the bus

was checked not between the stages but after the stage and

therefore there was no reason to suspect the bonafide of the

Checking Squad. He stated that the past history of the petitioner

cannot be ignored while considering the proportionality of

punishment.

8 I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

9 Though the petitioner claimed that the domestic

enquiry was not fair and proper, he could not establish the same

before this Court. A gigantic establishment such as the

respondent-Corporation depends on its foot soldiers such as the

petitioner to garner income for the Corporation. Therefore it is

expected of them to be honest, agile and prompt in the matter of

collection of fare from the passengers. The inspector who

checked the bus was examined before the Court and he placed

on record, the statement of the ticketless passengers, as well as

the penalty receipts evidencing the collection of penalty from

such passengers. The petitioner did not establish anything to the

contrary but claimed that the bus was checked after it moved

from stage 5 when he was issuing the tickets. However, the

articles of charge indicated that 22 ticketless passengers were

alighting at stage 5. The fact that the petitioner failed to close

the stage entries at stage 5 even after reaching stage 5 showed

that the petitioner was not honest.

      10     As     held      by    the    Apex   Court       in    the    case   of

Divisional       Controller,       KSRTC       (NWKRTC)            Vs.    A.T.Mane

reported    in    2005(3)          SCC     254,   it    is   not     the    amount

misappropriated        that       should    determine        the     quantum      of

punishment but it is the loss of confidence that has to be

considered while inflicting punishment. The evidence on record

clearly indicates that the petitioner was involved in

misappropriation of funds of the Corporation by not issuing

tickets even after collecting fare. Therefore it cannot be said that

there is no evidence to establish the misconduct on the part of

the petitioner. The Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana

and Another Vs. Rattan Singh reported in 1977 (2) SCC 491

held as follows:

"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence - not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and wordly wisdom will accept. Viewed in

this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is certainty available for the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence which has relevance to the charge leveled against the respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground."

11 This Court therefore does not deem it appropriate to

interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court.

Hence, this petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGK