Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director And Anr vs Mahadevappa on 5 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
WP No. 202907 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT PETITION NO.202907 OF 2018 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
NEKRTC CENTRAL OFFICE,
KALABURAGI.
2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
NEKRTC, RAICHUR DIVISION,
RAICHUR,
REP. BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
KHAJAAMEEN L
MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH
MAHADEVAPPA S/O HANAMAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
KARNATAKA
(EX-CONDUCTOR 1808 RAICHUR DEPOT ),
R/O. BUDDINI POST. HUVINBHAVI,
TQ. LINGASUGUR DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
WP No. 202907 of 2018
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED AWARD
DATED-07.08.2017 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT,
KALABURGI IN REF.NO.5/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the order passed by
the Labour Court in Ref.No.05/2017 dated 07.08.2017,
writ petitioner has prayed for following relief :-
"Issue a writ or order or direction writ in the
nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned
award dated 07.08.2017 passed by the Labour
Court, Kalaburgi in Ref.No.5/2017 vide
Annexure-B."
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
02. The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent was working as a conductor in corporation. On
24.01.2007 while discharging his duty as a conductor in
the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-36-F-439 going from Manvi to
Bagalkot, it was checked by the officials of the corporation
and found that there were 48 passengers traveling in the
bus and 08 passengers were traveling without ticket. On
enquiry the same, it was revealed that the said passengers
had paid fair of Rs.5/- each and the respondent, though
collected the fare, but did not issue the ticket. Considering
the misconduct committed by the respondent, an enquiry
was held by the corporation in case No.354/2007, in
accordance with regulation of the KSRTC. Thereafter, by
an order dated 06.11.2007 vide Annexure-A he was
dismissed from the service and no salary was paid during
the period of suspension.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
03. The respondent had challenged the above said
order before the Labour Court, at Kalaburagi in
Ref.No.5/2017. The Labour Court after recording the
evidence of workman as well as the management and
after hearing both the parties, passed impugned order
dated 07.08.2017, setting aside the order passed by the
disciplinary authority under Section 10 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, dated 06.11.2007 and directed to reinstate
the respondent - workman within 04 weeks from the date
of the award, without back-wages and continuity of the
service. The same is challenged by the corporation in the
present writ petition.
04. It is not in dispute that when the order of
dismissal was passed by the petitioners - corporation an
industrial dispute was pending before the Industrial
Tribunal bearing No.148/2005 and corporation did not
comply Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
Therefore, the Labour Court held that the order passed by
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
the disciplinary authority under Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act dated 06.11.2007 was non-est.
Therefore, there is no error committed by the Labour
Court in holding that the order passed by the disciplinary
authority vide Annexure-A, is illegal.
05. The learned counsel for the petitioners -
corporation vehemently urges that the Labour Court did
not punish the respondent for his misconduct that may
encourage the defaulting workman / employee in
committing the misconduct. In this case, the respondent
though collected fare of Rs.5/- from 08 passengers, but he
did not issue the tickets to the passengers. It was found
during checking of the Bus by the officials of the
corporation. Therefore, prays to impose suitable
punishment.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
06. The learned counsel for the respondent
seriously objected for the same and submits that due to
the act of the respondent who is already removed from the
service due to illegal acts of the corporation and so far he
has not reinstated. The Labour Court has also directed not
to pay back-wages, when he was not in service. The said
punishment is more than sufficient. Hence, prayed not to
impose additional punishment.
07. The submission of learned counsel for the
respondent is acceptable.
08. The Labour Court even did not accept the
enquiry held by corporation as fair and proper. It was set-
aside the said order under Section 32 (2) (b) of the
Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, question of imposing the
penalty does not arise. There is no ground to interfere in
the findings of the Labour Court. The Labour Court has
also discussed in detail about the condonation of delay of
10 years in filing the petition before the Labour Court and
relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has
condoned the delay. There are no reasons to interfere in
the said findings.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3612
09. For the above said discussion, I pass the
following;
ORDER
i) The writ petition is dismissed.
ii) During the pendency of this case the stay was
granted and period of 04 weeks given by the
Labour Court is already expired. Therefore, the
corporation shall reinstate the respondent within
04 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
order without back-wages.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
CT:PK
