Karnataka High Court
Divisional Controller Ksrtc vs General Secretary on 7 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.22954/2012 (L-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR,
KSRTC CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF LAW OFFICER, BANGALORE. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GENERAL SECRETARY
KSRTC EMPLOYEES (GENERAL),
ASSOCIATION REGD. KOLAR DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DEPOT.
2. SRI P. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O. CHINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
K C NO.535, CHIKKABALLAPURA DEPOT,
KOLAR DIVISION. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SATISH CHANDRA Y.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE, DATED
04.03.2010 IN I.D.NO.44/2006 VIDE ANNEXURE-B, THERE BY HOLDING
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NOT PROPER IN RESPECT OF PUNISHMENT ORDER
DATED 24.12.2003 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
The question that falls for consideration before this
Court is,
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering
with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary
authority by invoking section 11A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947?
2. The workman raised a dispute before the
Government and the said dispute was referred to the
Tribunal for adjudication in respect of several punishments in
a single reference, before the Tribunal, the workman filed a
memo for having given up the six punishments not to be
adjudicated, the Tribunal accepting the memo, proceeded
trial of three punishment orders dated 07.03.2003,
24.12.2003 and 11.05/06.2005.
3. Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel
for the petitioner-Corporation and Sri Satish Chandra Y.S.,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, held that
the order of punishment dated 07.03.2003 and 24.12.2003
are illegal, liable to be set aside, the punishment imposed on
11.05/06.2004 was held to be just and proper.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in setting
aside the orders of punishment dated 07.03.2003 and
24.12.2003, the Corporation is before this Court through this
writ petition.
6. The Tribunal arrived at a conclusion of defective
enquiry with regard to punishment orders dated 07.03.2003
and 11.06.2004, enquiry held to be fair and proper to the
punishment order dated 24.12.2003, the management then
let in evidence on the merits.
7. The charge in respect of the punishment order
dated 07.03.2003 was that, the bus was checked and found
that the workman failed to issue ten tickets to ten group of
passengers, office memo was issued, statements of ticketless
passengers were recorded, penalty was imposed, seized
unpunched tickets and passed remarks in the waybills. The
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was
reducing the basic pay of incremental stage and treat the
period of suspension not on duty.
8. The charge in respect of punishment order dated
24.12.2003 was that the workman neither issued tickets nor
collected fare of five denominations from each of the
passengers and the punishment imposed was one increment
for one year was withheld by the disciplinary authority.
9. The charge in respect of the punishment order
dated 11.05/06.2004 was that, the workman while on duty
on 13.03.2004 citing the checking staff issued three tickets
with irregular punches, though collected fare from the
boarding place and the punishment was reducing basic pay
of one stage with cumulative period and treat the suspension
as not on duty.
10. The charges were for the misconduct of the
workman on three occasions as per the contest made by the
workman. In respect of several other charges for the similar
misconduct, the workman admitted and sought to contend
that he does not press those charges into service. Hence,
the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority on
07.03.2003, 24.12.2003 and 11.06.2005 was considered by
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, though held that the enquiry
conducted in respect of the charge of misconduct was held
fair and proper for the punishment dated 07.03.2003, held
that the punishment imposed was not proportionate, without
giving reasons or holding as to how the punishment does not
commensurate the charges. In Karnataka State Road
Transport Corporation vs. B.S.Hulikatti1, the Apex Court
held that it is a misplaced sympathy by the Courts in
awarding lesser punishment where on checking, it is found
that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a
large number of passengers, though they should have or
have issued tickets of lower denomination knowing fully well
the correct fare to be charged. The Apex Court held that the
(2001) 2 SCC 574
act of a conductor is in fiduciary capacity and it would be a
case of gross misconduct, if knowingly they do not collect
any fare or correct amount of fare. The material on record
indicates that the workman was issued with several charges
of the similar kind of non issuance of tickets despite
collecting fare, unpunched tickets were recovered, non-
entering the stage even after the destination was reached,
irregular punched tickets were recovered and the misconduct
on the part of the workman was not of the first kind, but on
several occasions, which is evident from the material on
record.
11. The Tribunal ought to have considered that in
such cases, the proper punishment that could have been
imposed by the disciplinary authority was the order of
dismissal. However, looking into the facts and the acts, the
disciplinary authority has imposed minor punishment. The
act on the part of the workman amounts to dishonesty and
the bus conductors, who by their actions or inactions caused
financial loss to the Corporation are not fit in fact to be
retained in service, as held by the Apex Court in the case of
Regional Manager, RSRTC vs. Ghanashyam Sharma2.
12. The Apex Court, in the case of Regional
Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah & others vs. Hotilal &
another3, has held that the Tribunal, while dealing with the
quantum of punishment has to record as to why it felt that
the punishment was not in commensurate with the proved
charges. In the instant case, the Tribunal has not assigned a
single reason as to how the punishment imposed was
disproportionate to the proved charges. The scope of
interference under Section 11A of the ID Act though is wider,
the Act given ample power to the Labour Court/Tribunal to
re-appraise the evidence adduced in the enquiry and also sit
in the appeal over the decision of the employer in imposing
punishment. However, Section 11A of the ID Act is
applicable in cases of dismissal or discharge of a workman as
clearly mentioned in the section itself. The Apex Court, in
the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and
(2002) 10 SCC 330
(2003) 3 SCC 605
Rubber Company of India Private Limited vs. The
Management & others4, has stated the powers of the
Labour Court in the absence of Section 11A of the ID Act. It
is well settled that when the enquiry was conducted fairly
and properly, in the absence of any allegation of victimisation
or mala fides or unfair labour practice, the Labour Court has
no power to interfere with the punishment imposed by the
management. In the instant case, it is the case where a
minor punishment has been imposed and the enquiry
conducted to the punishment 07.03.2003 was held to be fair
and proper. Insofar as the enquiry conducted in respect of
punishment dated 24.12.2003, there was a personal hearing
given to the workman and the Tribunal was not justified in
substituting its own judgment with that of the management.
The act on the part of the workman is not a position where
Labour Court/Tribunal ought to have interfered with, there is
no allegation of victimisation or unfair labour practice, on the
other hand, what could be seen from the orders of the
disciplinary authority in respect of the charges levelled
AIR 1973 SC 1227 : (1973) 1 SCC 813
against the workman is that the disciplinary authority has
imposed minor punishment to the workman. Inspite of the
conduct of the workman in pilfering the revenue of the
Corporation and, when an employee is charged with a
misconduct where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, the matter should be dealt with
iron hands and not leniently. The Apex Court, in the case of
South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union vs.
Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. &
another5, has held that the Labour Court can interfere if the
findings are perverse and if there is a allegation of
victimisation or mala fides or unfair labour practice.
13. In the instant case, there is not even single
material to show that there was victimisation, mala fides or
unfair labour practice on the workman and the findings of the
disciplinary authority cannot be held to be one with
perversity warranting interference under Section 11A of the
(2006) 5 SCC 201
- 10 -
ID Act. In the said circumstances, this Court pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Tribunal in setting
aside the order of punishment dated are 07.03.2003,
24.12.2003 are hereby set aside.
(iii) The order punishment passed by the disciplinary
authority stands confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE
S*
