Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs N. Sudhakar on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
WA No. 583 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2023 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
MAYAGAIAH AND:
VINUTHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF N. SUDHAKAR
KARNATAKA
S/O. B. NARASIMHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NALLACHERAVU,
PATHAPALYA POST,BAGEPALLI TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT-562 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHEKAR.L, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
WA No. 583 of 2023
AND SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2023 IN WP No-
46249/2017 AND ALLOW THE WP IN ITS ENTIRELY IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)
The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated
10.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ
petition Nos.46249/2017 and 8344/2021, whereby the
learned Single Judge has disposed of both the petitions by
stating in paragraph-9 as under:
9. The claim of the Road Transport
Corporation that the dismissal order passed ought to
have been confirmed by the Labour Court in my
considered opinion is not sustainable inasmuch as the
loss which has been alleged to have been caused to the
Corporation is a sum of Rs.1080/- which would not in
my considered opinion require a dismissal of a
workman from service. This aspect has been rightly
considered by the Labour Court and the said Court has
come to a conclusion that, that was a disproportionate
punishment imposed to the offence alleged and reduced
it to reduction of 5 yearly increments with cumulative
effect. In my considered opinion the said order being
proper and correct does not require any interference."
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
2. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the observation made by the learned
Single Judge that the loss which has been alleged to have
been caused to the Corporation is a sum of Rs.108/- and
not Rs.1080/- as mentioned, which in the considered view,
would not require dismissal of the respondent from
service. According to her, this observation of the learned
Single Judge is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager,
Andhrapradesh, State Road Transport Corporation
Vs. V.V.Rao reported in (2007) 15 SCC 675 and also in
the case of the Regional Manager, UPSRTC, Etawah
Vs. Hoti Lal and another reported in (2003) 3 SCC
605. She also submits, even the past service record of
the respondent would reveal that on 97 instances, the
appellant had imposed penalty including recovery of the
amount.
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
3. We have seen the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and also heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
4. The admitted position is that the respondent
has been reinstated in service in the year 2017. According
to the learned counsel for the respondent, he has since
been working as Driver-cum-Conductor without any
blemish. In that sense, he states that the order of the
learned Single Judge is justified. He also states that 97
instances on which the appellant is relying upon is an
incorrect figure. Even otherwise, the said factum was not
subject matter of the charge sheet issued to the
respondent and hence, could not have been relied upon by
the appellant against the respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would
dispute this submission made by the learned counsel for
the respondent. According to her, 97 instances were
placed before the Labour Court by way of a statement and
the same was exhibited as Ex.R4. Hence, the said factum
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
having been proved, the same cannot be disowned by the
respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the judgment in the case of the Regional Manager,
UPSRTC, Etawah (Supra) to contend that even where
there is a loss to the exchequer of Rs.16, resulting in
dismissal, the same was held to be valid. She also states
that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for
the respondent was in the facts of that case and as such is
distinguishable.
7. We are unable to agree with the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellant. No doubt,
it is true that the observations made by the learned Single
Judge which we have referred to above, could not have
been made in the facts in view of the judgment relied
upon by the counsel for the appellant, but the fact remains
that in lieu of wages under Section 17B of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the appellant has reinstated the
respondent. It is not the case of the appellant that even
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
after 2017, the respondent was involved in an identical
misdemeanor. In other words, the record post 2017 being
clean and the respondent has been working in the
appellant Corporation for the last 7 years without any
blemish and keeping in view the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Depot Manager,
Andhrapradesh, (Supra), more so, when the Labour
Court had modified the penalty to reduction of 5 yearly
increments with cumulative effect, the same shall suffice
the penalty. Having said so, we are of the view that the
respondent shall not be entitled for back wages/benefits of
any kind, including leave encashment for the period during
which he remained out of service but shall be entitled to
the benefit of continuity of service which shall also include
Seniority.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is
disposed of.
NC: 2024:KHC:31424-DB
10. In view of disposal of the appeal,
I.A.Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 do not survive for
consideration and the same are disposed of.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
KTY
