Karnataka High Court
Sri D Ratnakara vs The Management Of Sri Gajanana 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.42034/2015 (L-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI D. RATNAKARA
S/O. LATE DEVENDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT MOBILE GRAM,
ANANTHAPURA POST,
SAGAR TALUK - 585323
SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGEMENT OF SRI GAJANANA
MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.,
SAGAR, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201
REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI R.V. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 26.06.2006 PASSED ON THE VALIDITY OF DOMESTIC
ENQUIRY VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND THE FINAL AWARD PASSED BY THE
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, D.K. MANGALORE, IN
I.D.A.NO.14/2003, DATED 17.02.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT
PETITION; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT TO REINSTATE
THE PETITIONER BACK INTO THE POST HELD BY HIM WITH
CONTINUITY OF SERVICE AND ALL OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
INCLUDING FULL BACK WAGES FROM THE DATE OF HIS DISMISSAL
TILL THE DATE OF HIS REINSTATEMENT BACK INTO SERVICE AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
13/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
ORDER
The workman, while in service with the respondent -
Corporation as a conductor, on 05.09.2002, for non-issuance
of tickets to 43 and half passengers, while discharging his
duties on enroute Sagara to Byadgi, charge memo was
issued, the workman replied to the charges, not being
satisfied with the reply given by the workman, charge sheet
was issued, enquiry was held, the enquiry officer, by
conducting enquiry, held that the charges leveled against the
workman are proved, disciplinary authority, on the basis of
the enquiry report and the material placed before it, passed
an order of dismissal against the workman. The workman
raised dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act seeking
for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back
wages and other consequential benefits.
2. The Corporation filed statement of objections,
inter alia, contending that the enquiry conducted, the
punishment imposed was after holding due enquiry and
following principles of natural justice. On the question of the
fairness of domestic enquiry, the Labour Court arrived at a
conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the
Corporation was fair and proper. The Labour Court by the
impugned order, dismissed the application filed by the
workman under Section 10(4-A) of the ID Act. Aggrieved by
which, the workman is in this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri R.V.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the
respondent and perused the material on record.
4. The material on record would indicate that the
charges leveled against the workman was non-issuance of
tickets for 43 and a half passengers, while more than 111
passengers had boarded the bus and which is evident from
Ex.M-8, the workman in his reply admitted the non-issuance
of tickets to 43 and a half passengers, though there were
more than 111 passengers travelling in the bus. Reason
assigned for non-issuance of tickets by the conductor is that
he could not issue tickets to all the passengers due to heavy
rush in the bus and could not complete the issuance of
tickets to the remaining passengers before the final
destination as the distance was too less. Undisputedly, the
non-issuance of tickets to the passengers and despite having
collected the bus fare is admitted by the workman, the
enquiry conducted having held to be fair and proper, the only
question that fell for consideration before the Labour Court
was, "whether there was perversity, victimization and unfair
labour practice on the part of the Corporation?" The claim
statement of the workman would indicate that the workman
has not raised a plea of victimization or unfair labour
practice. In the absence of the same, the order of the
disciplinary authority cannot be one having suffered with
perversity, victimization or unfair labour practice. The Labour
Court had recorded a categorical finding that the non-
issuance of ticket by the workman to the passengers boarded
was willful with an indication that he had an ulterior motive
and the act of the workman was in violation of the standing
orders of the establishment.
5. The Apex Court, time and again held that
sympathy or generosity as a factor, when an employee is
found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation's fund, and
when the corporation loses confidence of faith in such
employee, the awarding of punishment of dismissal is
appropriate. The decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
Karntaka State Road Transport Corporation vs.
B.S.Hullikatti1 (B.S.Hullikatti) in the said line held that it is
a misplaced sympathy by the Labour Court if the order of
disciplinary authority is interfered with, when it is found that
the conductors have either not issued tickets to a large
number of passengers, though they should have, or have
issued tickets of a lower denomination knowing fully well the
correct fare to be charged. It is the responsibility of the bus
conductor to collect the correct fare from the passenger and
deposit the same with the Corporation, the act of the
conductor is in fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of
gross misconduct, if knowingly, if they do not collect any fare
(2001) 2 SCC 574
or correct amount of fare and held that such an act on the
part of the bus conductor would amount to gross misconduct,
applying res ipsa loquitur.
6. In the case of State of Haryana & another vs.
Rattan Singh2 (Rattan Singh) on the question of
departmental enquiry, the Apex Court held that in a domestic
enquiry all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence
Act may not apply. The material which have logically
probative for a prudent mind are permissible, though the
department authorities and the administrative tribunals must
be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly
swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant to the Evidence
Act and held that the fair play is the basis and if perversity or
arbitrariness bias or surrender of independence of judgment
vitiate the conclusion reach, such finding, even of a domestic
enquiry cannot be held to be good.
(1977) 2 SCC 491
7. The Apex Court, in the case of Divisional
Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) vs. A.T. Mane3(A.T. Mane),
held that the loss of confidence is a primary factor and not
the amount of misappropriation, in judicial review held that
the act of either dishonest or grossly negligent that the
workman was not fit to be retained as a conductor.
8. The Apex Court in A.T. Mane's case relying on
the judgment of the Apex Court in Rattan Singh and
B.S.Hullikatti stated supra held that when an employee is
found guilty of misappropriating the Corporation's fund, there
is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence of faith
in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal.
It is further held that there is no case for generosity or
misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and
interfering, therefore, with the quantum of punishment.
9. The Apex Court in the latter judgment, in the case
of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun vs.
(2005) 3 SCC 254
Suresh Pal4 held that, normally the Court should not
substitute the punishment unless they are shockingly
disproportionate and if the punishment is interfered or
substituted lightly in the punishment in exercise of their
extraordinary jurisdiction, then it will amount to abuse of the
process of the Court and if such kind of misconduct like the
non-issuing of tickets to 20 passengers and the workman
having held to be guilty when the workman was holding the
position of trust, the Apex Court has held that the
misconduct would be dealt with iron hand and not lenient.
10. In similar line, the Apex Court, in the case of
North West Karnataka Road Transportation vs.
H.H.Pujar5, held that when the conductor of a bus has been
caught by the checking squad for non-issuance of tickets in
the domestic enquiry if he is found guilty, the act of such
nature needs to be taken seriously and the order of dismissal
was found to be appropriate in such cases.
(2006) 8 SCC 108
(2008) 12 SCC 698
11. The decisions stated supra, aptly apply to the
instant case, the material on record clearly indicates that the
disciplinary authority and the Labour Court were justified in
holding the workman guilty of the charges leveled against
him for non-issuance of tickets by the workman in respect of
the passengers who had boarded the bus, not completing the
issuance of tickets in the gate-pass is a misconduct, which
has to be seriously taken note of, the conductor of a bus
holding a position of trust and it is not the question of
amount which is involved in the misconduct, but it is
ultimately the mental set up of the workman, the non-
issuance of tickets after having collected the bus fare from
the passengers clearly indicates about the intention of the
workman. The employer loses confidence in the workman
when the misconduct is of such a nature, the punishment to
be imposed for the grave misconduct cannot be substituted
by any lighter punishment.
12. The Labour Court by considering the proposition
of law and the material on record, has rightly not exercised
- 10 -
its discretion under Section 11A of the ID Act. The process
of decision making and considering the punishment is
proportionate or disproportionate, the Labour Court has
rightly held that the misconduct having proved, a lenient
view cannot be exercised by the Tribunal and being satisfied
that the workman has found squarely guilty of misconduct of
not issuing tickets to the passengers as held in the domestic
enquiry which is clear from the material on record, this Court
is of the considered view that the order passed by the Labour
Court does not warrant any interference and accordingly, this
Court pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Labour Court stands
confirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE
S*
