Karnataka High Court

North West Karnataka Road Transport ... vs M Bhimappa on 28 May, 2024

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

                                                 -1-
                                                       NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070
                                                            WP No. 63685 of 2010




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024

                                              BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                             WRIT PETITION NO.63685/2010(L-KSRTC)

                   BETWEEN:

                   NORTH WEST KARNATAKA ROAD
                   TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
                   BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT
                   BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
                   REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER
                   SMT. PREMA BANAVI.
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.    M. BHIMAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.
                   1A.   SMT. NAGAMMA W/O. BHIMANNA,
                         AGE: 57 YEARS.
                   1B.   ASHOK S/O. M. BHIMANNA,
                         AGE: 36.
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
                   1C.   SIDDALINGAPPA M. BHIMANNA,
Location: High           AGE: 28.
Court of
Karnataka
                   1D. SMT. DEVAMMA D/O. M. BHIMANNA,
                       AGE: 29.
                         ALL ARE RESIDING OF MASKI TALUK,
                         LIGASUR, DISTRICT: RAICHUR.
                                                                    ...RESPONDENTS
                   (BY SRI S. K. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1A TO R1D)

                        THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
                   ANY OTHER WRIT DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH
                   THE ORDER DATED 28/08/2009, PASSED BY THE PRESIDING
                   OFFICER, LABOR COURT, BIJAPUR, PASSED IN K.I.D.93/1999,
                   WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070
                                           WP No. 63685 of 2010




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

1. This petition is by the petitioner-North West

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the

award dated 28.08.2009 passed in KID No.93/1999 on the

file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vijayapur, by

which, while partly allowing the petition filed by original

respondent-workman under Section 10(4)(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court has set

aside the dismissal order dated 16.09.1999 and also

directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent into the

service and if he was in service, he was directed to be

continued with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are that; the original

respondent-M.Bhimanna was working as conductor, in the

petitioner-Corporation. That on 18.04.1997, the said

M.Bhimanna was discharging his duty as conductor in the

bus bearing No.F-160, which was plying between Kolhapur

to Ilkal. That when the said bus came near Managuli stage

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

No.20/19, the checking officials of the petitioner-

Corporation intercepted the bus and found many

irregularities in discharging of the duties by the said

M.Bhimanna. That during the interception, it was found

that the said M. Bhimanna had failed to issue tickets to 5

passengers and had failed to collect fair of Rs.6/- from

each of them valuing in total Rs.30/-. That the said

passengers were travelling from Vijayapur to Managuli.

That apart, it is alleged that the said M. Bhimanna had

kept 4 tickets of Rs.8/- each, in the tray with an intention

to re-issue the same. Besides, he failed to enter the

waybill against the stage bill 20/19, despite reaching the

stage. That he had failed to account the sold tickets of

various denominations in the waybill. Thus, the inspecting

officials had found all these irregularities and since the

respondent- M. Bhimanna did not give satisfactory answer,

they collected the fine amount from the ticket-less

passengers. That thereafter, the said passengers had got

down from the bus and had thrown stones at the bus,

resulting damage to the bus.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

3. That a memo was issued to the said M.

Bhimanna. That the incident was reported by the officials

to the disciplinary authority, who issued article of charges

to the said M. Bhimanna, to which he had sent reply

denying the allegations made in the charge. Not being

satisfied with the reply given by him, the disciplinary

authority held enquiry through an enquiry officer. That on

18.07.1998, enquiry was conducted in the presence of the

respondent-M.Bhimanna, following principles of natural

justice. That after completion of enquiry, the enquiring

officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority,

who on perusal of the same and after giving an

opportunity to the respondent, to have his say on the

report, had held the charges made against the respondent

were proved and accordingly on 16.09.1999 that the

disciplinary authority of the petitioner-Corporation passed

orders dismissing respondent from the services for his

proved misconduct.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

4. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the

respondent raised the dispute before the Presiding Officer,

Labour Court in KID No.93/1999. The petitioner-

Corporation filed written statement denying the claim

petition justifying the enquiry conducted by the enquiry

officer and the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

The Labour Court by order dated 27.01.2003 had allowed

the claim statement in part directing the petitioner

Corporation to reinstate the respondent-M.Bhimanna with

50% back-wages and continuity of service and other

consequential benefits.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-

Corporation had preferred writ petition before this Court in

W.P.No.22045/2004. This Court had quashed the said

order passed by the Labour Court and remanded the

matter for re-appreciation of the evidence and also to

reconsider the material evidence on record by affording

opportunity to the parties. That after the remand of the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

matter by this Court, the Labour Court had issued notice

to the parties and re-considered the matter.

6. That it is the further case of the petitioner-

Corporation that Labour Court without properly

appreciating the direction issued by this Court and without

considering the facts and evidence available on record yet

again allowed the claim petition by the impugned order.

Aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this

Court through the records, submits that the Labour Court

could not have interfered with the finding recorded by the

enquiry officer as it is beyond the purview/jurisdiction of

the Labour Court. He relies upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State

Road Transport Corporation Vs.Gajadhar Nath,

(2022) 3 SCC 190, in support of the said submission. He

also relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn.

Vs.B.S.Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574, to contend that

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

dismissal of bus conductor for charging higher fair from

the passenger amounts to gross misconduct and

reinstatement in such cases is wrongful. It is the further

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the order impugned is passed on 28.08.2009, whereas the

original respondent-M. Bhimanna, who was the claimant

before the Labour Court, had passed away during the year

2006. Thus, he submits that the Labour Court could not

have passed the order in respect of the deceased

employee directing reinstatement. On these grounds,

learned counsel seeks allowing of the petition.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

legal representatives of the original respondent justifying

the orders passed by the Labour Court submits that the

evidence which was led by the parties before the

disciplinary committee was inadequate to sustain the

charges made against the respondent-M.Bhimanna. He

submits that the Labour Court had framed issue with

regard to proprietary or otherwise of the domestic enquiry

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

conducted by the petitioner-Corporation and having found

the same to be inappropriate, had permitted the parties to

lead further evidence and the petitioner-Corporation

having submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Labour

Court by leading evidence cannot now contend to the

contrary. Thus, he submits that the petition is one without

merits and required to be dismissed.

9. Heard and perused the records.

10. The Labour Court on the basis of the pleadings

of the parties had framed the following issues for its

consideration:

i. Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the respondent is fair and proper?

ii. Whether the management is justified in dismissing the services of the claimant with effect from 16.09.1999?

iii. If not, to what reliefs the claimant is entitled?

11. Records reveal that by order dated 05.02.2001,

the Labour Court had answered issue No.1 in the negative.

The said order has remained unchallenged and has

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

attained finality. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner-

Corporation has examined one Yashwant Yatanur as MW1

and has exhibited as many as 20 documents marked as

Exs.M1 to M20 and has closed its side. In response, the

workman examined himself as WW1 and closed his side.

12. The above being the facts available on record,

this Court cannot accept the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation, that the

Labour Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence.

The said submission is not tenable in view of the

undisputed fact of Labour Court having found the domestic

enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Corporation to be

unfair and improper and the said order having remained

unchallenged, besides, the petitioner-Corporation

submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by

opting to lead further evidence as noted above. As such,

the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner on to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation (supra), is of no avail.

13. The Labour Court after having recorded the

evidence and on appreciation of the matter had by its

order dated 27.01.2003 allowed the claim statement in

part, by directing the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate

the claimant with 50% back-wages and with the direction

to continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

This order was carried by the petitioner-Corporation to this

Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22045/2004. This

Court had allowed the said writ petition on 21.08.2007 and

remanded the matter for re-appreciation of the evidence

and also to consider the material evidence on record. Even

as admitted by the petitioner at paragraph 7 of the Writ

Petition, after the remand, notice was issued to the

parties, matter was heard, evidence was re-appreciated

and thereafter the impugned order is passed confirming

and reiterating the earlier order of reinstatement.

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

14. The argument now canvassed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the present order impugned

is passed on 28.08.2009 and that the original respondent

had passed away in the year 2006, as such, the Labour

Court could not have proceeded the matter cannot be

countenanced. The records reveal that the hearing was

concluded even as admitted by the petitioner after issuing

the notice to the parties and thereafter matter was set

down for orders. Relevant at this juncture to refer to Order

XXII Rule 6 of CPC which reads as under:

"6. No abatement by reason of death after hearing.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, whether the cause of action survives or not, there shall be no abatement by reason of the death of either party between the conclusion of the hearing and the pronouncing of the judgment, but judgment may in such case be pronounced notwithstanding the death and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place."

15. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the

Labour Court on an earlier occasion by order dated

28.08.2003 has allowed the claim statement in part which

order was set aside at the instance of the petitioner-

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:7070

Corporation who sought for re-appreciation of evidence

which was done. Though the respondent-workman is

stated to have been passed away during the year 2006 for

all practical purposes, hearing of the matter had been

concluded during his lifetime.

16. It is also necessary to note that the principle