Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs M. Prashanth
2022 Latest Caselaw 5264 Kant

                                     W.P.No.55714/2017

                              1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

       WRIT PETITION No.55714/2017 (L-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
MYSURU RURAL DIVISION
BANNIMANTAP ROAD
MYSURU
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
REPRESENTED BY
ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER                     ...PETITIONER

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

AND:

M.PRASHANTH
S/O LATE V.MAHADEVU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.24, L/1A, K.M.BLOCK
RAJENDRANAGAR
MYSURU - 570 001                         ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI V.S.NAIK A/W
    SMT.MANJULA N.KULKARNI, ADVOCATES)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE AWARD DATED 21.02.2017 (ANNEXURE-F) PASSED BY THE
LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NO.25/2015.

      THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                         W.P.No.55714/2017

                            2


                        ORDER

Aggrieved by the impugned award Annexure-F dated

21.02.2017 in I.I.D.No.25/2015 passed by the Labour

Court, Mysuru, the employer has preferred the above

petition.

2. The respondent was working in the petitioner's

establishment as Driver cum Conductor. The petitioner

subjected the respondent to domestic enquiry on the

ground that on 19.09.2013 when the respondent was on

duty on route No.103/104 in bus number KA-09 F-5003

from Mumbai to Mysuru, the checking squad intercepted

the bus in Mysuru bus stand and checked. It was further

alleged that the respondent had not charged Rs.435/- for

5 units of luggage (12 bags of footwear) from the

passenger, thereby he has committed misconduct.

3. The respondent was issued with articles of

charges as per Annexure-A. The respondent issued reply

Annexure-B alleging that he had weighed the luggage and

charged that, despite that without weighing the luggage

false memo was issued by the checking squad. He W.P.No.55714/2017

contended that the petitioner on coercion collected the

charges from the passenger and issued him memo.

4. The enquiry officer on conducting the enquiry

under the report Annexure-C indicted the respondent on

the ground that he has failed to disprove the charge and

his defence statement is only afterthought.

5. Accepting the said enquiry report, the

petitioner issued the punishment order Annexure-D dated

18.06.2015 dismissing the respondent from service. The

respondent challenged the said dismissal order in I.I.D.

No.25/2015 before the Labour Court, Mysuru raising

dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

6. The Labour Court held that the enquiry

conducted against the respondent was fair. So far as

merits of the enquiry, the Labour Court held that the

enquiry officer and the petitioner have failed to consider

the relevant materials and the findings of the enquiry

officer were perverse. The Labour Court accepted the

defence of the respondent that as per the management's

own document Ex.M11 there were only 12 bags weighing W.P.No.55714/2017

30 units in the bus and the respondent had collected the

required charges for the same.

7. The Labour Court by award Annexure-F set

aside the order of dismissal directing the petitioner to

reinstate the respondent with 50% back wages, continuity

of service and all consequential benefits.

Submissions of Smt.H.R.Renuka, learned Counsel for the appellant:

8. Exs.W5 to W7 were all concocted documents.

The respondent went on improving his case. The Labour

Court should not have reassessed the evidence. The

petitioner had no duty to chase the fined passenger and

examine him. The Labour Court in reversing the order of

the Disciplinary Authority has exceeded its jurisdiction.

Having regard to the antecedents of the respondent, the

petitioner has correctly imposed punishment of dismissal.

9. In support of her submission, she relies upon

the following judgments:

(i) State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh1

(ii) K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore v. Sathyanarayan2

AIR 1977 SC 1512

2003 (2) Kar.L.J. 125 W.P.No.55714/2017

(iii) N.W.K.R.T. Corporation v. S.S.Poleshi3

(iv) N.W.K.R.T.C., Hubli v. K.S.Raghunathapppa4

Submissions of Sri V.S.Naik, learned Counsel for the respondent:

10. The whole basis of the allegation itself was not

established. As per the petitioner's own witnesses, they

arrived at conclusion about weight without weighing the

luggage. The petitioner's own document Ex.M11 showed

that the respondent on weighing the entire luggage had

charged for that. The Disciplinary Authority placing the

burden of disproving the charge on the respondent is

unknown to the industrial jurisprudence. Considering all

such facts, the Labour Court has rightly reversed the

report of the enquiry officer and the order of dismissal.

There is no scope to interfere with such findings in writ

jurisdiction.

11. In support of his submission, he relies on the

following judgments:

         (i)     Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer5



    2000 (4) Kar.L.J. 538

    2003 (3) Kar.L.J. 176

    AIR 1985 SC 1121
                                                   W.P.No.55714/2017

(ii) Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union6

Analysis:

12. The sum and substance of the judgments

relied on by both side on the Industrial Dispute

jurisprudence is that the report of the enquiry officer shall

not be lightly interfered by the Labour Court. Unless it is

shown that the enquiry was not fair and that the findings

of the enquiry officer were perverse, the Labour Court

cannot interfere with such findings. Further the High Court

in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere with the order of the

Labour Court unless it is shown that the Labour Court in

passing the order exceeded the jurisdiction or failed to

exercise the jurisdiction.

13. The specific case of the petitioner was that the

respondent had not charged five units of luggage and

caused loss of Rs.435/- to the petitioner without issuing

luggage tickets to the passenger. The burden of proving

the said charge was on the petitioner. As rightly pointed

out by the Labour Court, the enquiry officer instead of

Appeal (Civil) 1407-1409/1998 DD 11.04.2000 W.P.No.55714/2017

placing the burden on the petitioner called upon the

respondent to disprove the charge.

14. The defence of the respondent as already

stated was that he had weighed whatever luggage was

there in the bus and issued ticket for the same. Therefore

the petitioner had to show that there was some other

luggage left out in the bus for which ticket was not issued

and that it was not charged. According to the

management's witness itself without weighing the luggage,

he issued second ticket shown in Ex.M.11. According to

both parties, 12 bags of footwear were loaded in the bus.

According to the management's witness, at the checking

point, that Mysore Bus stand he collected electronic ticket

machine from the respondent and issued Ex.M11 through

the said machine.

15. Ex.M11 shows that for 30 units of luggage, the

respondent had already issued ticket No.004338 and

collected Rs.2,595/-. The petitioner claims to have issued

another ticket No.004339 for another 5 units of luggage

and collected Rs.435/- from the passenger by way of

penalty.

W.P.No.55714/2017

16. According to petitioner's Counsel the petitioner

need not examine the fined passenger. Even if that is

accepted, the petitioner had burden of showing that there

was uncharged luggage weighing 5 units. The bus was not

intercepted or checked in any remote area. It was checked

in Mysuru bus stand which indisputably had all the facilities

to weigh the luggage. Despite that luggage was not

weighed. There was already weighed luggage of 30 units.

There was no explanation on the part of the management

witnesses for the lapse of not weighing the alleged five

units of luggage.

17. The other document relied on by the

management was Ex.M10 the fine receipt. It is contended

that the respondent subscribed the signature on Ex.M10

admitting five units of uncharged luggage and collection of

fine. According to the respondent, the fine was imposed

and his signature was taken under coercion.

18. At the cost of repetition, it has to be said that

the basic fact of weighing of the luggage of five units in

the bus stand itself was not proved. The Labour Court W.P.No.55714/2017

considering the implication of Ex.M11 and act of not

weighing the luggage holds that the findings of the enquiry

officer were perverse. Therefore it cannot be said that the

Labour Court either acted without jurisdiction or exceeded

its jurisdiction. There is no scope for interference with such

order under the writ jurisdiction.

19. Once the charge itself is not held proved, the

question of considering the past conduct of the respondent

does not arise. Therefore the judgments relied on the said

point serve no purpose.

20. The Labour Court considering the fact that the

respondent had not worked from the date of dismissal till

his reinstatement but his absence from work was not due

to his fault, to balance equities awarded only 50% of the

back wages. There are no grounds to interfere with the

said order. Therefore the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR