Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramappa S/O Yalagurdappa Hunnalli vs The Management Of Nwkrtc on 5 April, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
WP No. 112256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 112256 OF 2017 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAPPA
S/O YALAGURDAPPA HUNNALLI,
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
R/O: BUDANAYAKDINNI,
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. CHANDRIKA KUBASAD, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF NWKRTC,
HAVERI DIVISION,
R/BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
HAVERI DIVISION,
HAVERI.
... RESPONDENT
VIJAYALAKSHMI
(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
M KANKUPPI
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2024.04.16 10:44:35 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
+0530
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE AWARD DATED
18.06.2016 IN K.I.D.NO.147/2012, PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-G IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
WP No. 112256 of 2017
ORDER
This petition is filed praying to quash the award dated
18.06.2016 passed in KID No.147/2012 by the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi, copy of which is at Annexure-
G and to quash the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the
respondent deleting the name of the petitioner from trainee
driver cum conductor list vide Annexure-B.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a trainee driver
cum conductor by the respondent on 06.10.2008. The
petitioner was driving bus bearing No.KA-27-F-168 plying on
the route of Hirekerur to Byadagi. At Hamsabhavi, near bus
stand, an accident has taken place as a result of which a
boy aged about 6 years died at the spot. The respondent-
Corporation issued articles of charge and the petitioner
denied the charges leveled against him. An Inquiry Officer
is appointed and after holding an inquiry, submitted a report
holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. The
Disciplinary Authority, after issuance of notice and
considering the reply, has passed the order dated
31.05.2012 (Annexure-B) removing the name of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
petitioner from the trainee list of drivers/conductors. The
petitioner filed a claim petition which came to be registered
in KID No.147/2012 and the respondent filed its statement
of objections. The labour Court, after framing issues, has
answered issue No.1 in the affirmative holding that the
enquiry held against the petitioner is fair and proper. The
petitioner, thereafter, himself examined as WW-1 and did
not produce any document. The labour Court considering
the inquiry report and the evidence on record, has passed
the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The said order of the labour Court has been challenged in
the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that the labour Court has not taken into consideration the
fact that the boy, who died in the accident, was aged 6
years having no maturity, as he rushed on the road from
the house hurriedly. She further contends that the accident
has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
petitioner and the petitioner came to be acquitted in the
criminal case registered against him. She further contends
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
that in the judgment of the said criminal case, the learned
Magistrate while appreciating the evidence on record, has
noted that the eye witnesses have not supported the case
of the prosecution and there were road humps within the
distance of 20 meters in front and back side of the accident
spot. She contends that, the labour Court was not justified
in passing the impugned order dismissing the claim petition
of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent would
contend that, the labour Court has held that enquiry held
against the petitioner is fair and proper and the petitioner
has failed to prove that the accident has not taken place due
to rash and negligent driving. The labour Court appreciating
the evidence on record has rightly dismissed the claim
petition of the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has
perused the materials placed on record.
6. The petitioner was appointed as a trainee driver
cum conductor on 06.10.2008. An accident has taken place
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
on 25.10.2010 i.e. after two years of his appointment as a
trainee driver cum conductor.
7. On a query made to the learned counsel for the
respondent, she is not able to answer to the Court with
regard to, what is the period of training to the petitioner?
8. The petitioner has not disputed the accident took
place and a boy aged 6 years died in the accident. The
petitioner contends that the accident has not taken place
due to rash and negligent driving. The labour Court relying
on a decision of this Court has observed that, it is for the
delinquent workman i.e. the driver of the vehicle, who
caused the accident to establish how the accident took place
as it is, especially, within his knowledge. Considering the
same, the labour Court held that the petitioner has not
placed reliable evidence to establish that he did not drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
9. With respect to the petitioner being acquitted in
the criminal case registered against him for offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Section 187 of the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
Motor Vehicles Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed certified copy of the judgment passed in the said
C.C. No.38/2011. In the said criminal case, the petitioner
has been acquitted of the charges for offences under
Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and Sections 187 of MV Act.
The said judgment has been passed subsequent to passing
of the impugned order by the labour Court. The Criminal
Court has rightly considered the evidence of PW-1 wherein
he has deposed that there were road humps existed on the
said road with a distance of 20 meters in front side and
backside of the accident spot. Considering the said aspect,
the learned Magistrate has observed that it is impossible to
drive a vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the said
criminal case, eyewitnesses to the accident have not
supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the
criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner giving benefit of
doubt considering that there are road humps and the
accident spot is in between the said two humps which are
situated at a distance of 20 meters itself indicate that a
vehicle cannot be drove in a high speed and more so, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
boy, who died in the accident, is aged 6 years. Considering
the defence taken up by the petitioner that the boy
suddenly came out of the house running and dashed to the
left side of the bus, lost control and fell down and he came
under the back wheels of the vehicle which ran over him
causing injuries and he died on the spot, it cannot be said
that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent
manner at the time of the accident. The Disciplinary
Authority and the labour court as well, while passing the
orders have taken into consideration that the petitioner was
involved in another accident dated 28.11.2009. The records
of the said another accident dated 28.11.2009 are not
produced. The labour Court swayed away with the fact of
the public causing damage to two buses immediately after
the accident and the respondent-Corporation sustaining loss
in that regard. "An accident is an accident" and all
accidents cannot be attributed to rash and negligent driving
of the drivers. Considering all these aspects, the order
passed by the labour Court is perverse and requires to be
set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6197
10. In the result, the following order:
The petition is allowed. The award dated 18.06.2016
passed in KID No.147/2012 by the Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Hubballi, (Annexure-G) is quashed. Consequently,
the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the respondent
(Anneure-B) is also quashed. The petitioner is ordered to be
reinstated into service without any back wages and
continuity of service.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kmv
ct:bck
